1. The Defendants jointly committed against the Plaintiff for KRW 243,106,952 and KRW 98,636,907 among them, as from October 29, 2016, and 144.

1. Facts of recognition;

(a) Seoul Metro is a corporation established pursuant to the Local Public Enterprises Act and Ordinance on the Establishment and Operation of Seoul Metro in order to carry on the business of constructing and operating the subway, etc. of Seoul Metropolitan City, which carries out the construction, supply and management of business facilities, sales facilities, transfer facilities, housing facilities, convenience facilities for living, welfare facilities, etc. in the station;

B. On January 7, 2010, Seoul metro (the Seoul Metropolitan Government Urban Railroad Corporation was established in consequence of its merger with the Seoul Metropolitan Government Urban Railroad Corporation on May 31, 2017; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) leased the lease deposit deposit amount of KRW 771,91,200, monthly rent of KRW 42,88,400, and monthly rent of KRW 408,400 from January 7, 2010 to March 6, 2016 to Defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant A”).

(hereinafter referred to as “instant lease agreement”) C.

On May 4, 2016, after the termination of the term of the instant lease agreement, Defendant A transferred to the Plaintiff part of the instant store, 100.89 square meters, which was part of the instant store.

Defendant A’s remainder of 136.04 square meters is Defendant B or lower without the Plaintiff’s consent.

) Defendant B, while occupying and using the said 136.04 square meters as a commercial building, was handed over to the Plaintiff on March 6, 2017. [The fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, and the purport of the entire pleadings and arguments as indicated in the Evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 1.

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. According to the facts acknowledged prior to the claim for return of unjust enrichment against the Defendants, even after the expiration of the term of validity of the instant lease agreement, Defendant A occupied and profited from the instant store through Defendant B by March 6, 2017, and Defendant B without any legal cause.