2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On July 29, 2016, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the Defendant’s name on September 19, 2016 due to the sale on July 29, 2016 with respect to the 3,369 square meters in Chuncheon-si (hereinafter “instant one real estate”).

B. On July 17, 2017, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the Defendant’s name on the same day as on the same day as on July 17, 2017, with respect to the pertinent 94 square meters, E, 76 square meters, and F 94 square meters (hereinafter “instant 2 real estate”).

C. The registration of ownership transfer was completed on July 17, 2017 under the Defendant’s name on the grounds of the sale on June 10, 2017, with respect to the 169 square meters in G Seocheon-si and H 1,258 square meters (hereinafter “instant three real estate”).

With respect to the instant 1, 2, and 3 real estate (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”) on June 26, 2018, the transfer registration of ownership was completed in the name of I on June 27, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 4, 6, and 8 (including virtual number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. In the process of purchasing each of the instant real estate in the name of the Defendant in order to use it as the Plaintiff’s factory site, J where the Plaintiff’s actual representative was the Plaintiff’s assertion, and the Defendant, his de facto spouse, paid each of the instant real estate sales proceeds of KRW 47,00,000, and the principal and interest of KRW 23,80,000, and the principal and interest of KRW 17,067,680, as the Plaintiff’s funds

Since the Defendant subsequently disposed of each of the instant real property to I, the Plaintiff was obligated to return to the Plaintiff the sum of KRW 87,867,680 (= KRW 23,800,000, KRW 17,067,680) incurred by the Plaintiff’s unjust enrichment (i.e., KRW 47,000).

B. We examine whether the Defendant unjust enrichment of KRW 87,867,680 from the Plaintiff’s funds.

According to the statements in Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including paper numbers), testimony by the witness J, and significant facts in this court, the defendant who is a de facto spouse to use each of the instant real estate as the plaintiff's factory site in the process of substantially operating the plaintiff.