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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

A. C on July 11, 1997 with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) owned by D, C completed the provisional registration of the right to claim ownership transfer on July 11, 1997. On June 14, 2002, C completed the registration of ownership transfer in its name on August 21, 2002 due to the successful bid due to voluntary auction.

B. Around March 2004, the Plaintiff planted approximately 200 glussium 200 to the instant real estate, and disposed of approximately 180 glus among the glusium from around 2011 to 2013.

C. C sold the instant real estate to E on September 16, 2005 and completed the registration of ownership transfer to E on the same day, and E sold the instant real estate to the Defendant on September 23, 2005 and completed the registration of ownership transfer to the Defendant on September 27, 2005.

On July 21, 2014, the Defendant sold the instant real estate to the Plaintiff, and completed the registration of ownership transfer to the Plaintiff on October 12, 2015.

Around November 2014, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking compensation for damages or return of unjust enrichment due to the illegal disposal of 180gs out of the number of campings identified in the instant real estate, as the Suwon District Court Branch Branch 2014Kahap8659, but the said court rendered a judgment dismissing the Defendant’s claim on June 23, 2015.

E. On February 17, 2017, the Defendant appealed as Seoul High Court Decision 2015Na19744, and the appellate court rendered a judgment ordering the Plaintiff to pay the amount of KRW 59.4 million, which is equivalent to the market price of the above 180gs, by returning unjust enrichment to the Defendant on the premise that the number of campings in the instant case was consistent with the instant real estate on February 17, 2017 (hereinafter “prior judgment”).

The plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court Decision 2017Da8418, but the Supreme Court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal on June 15, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 shall be applied.