A. The Plaintiff had the first son D and the second son Defendant between the former husband C.

B. On July 5, 2006, the Plaintiff brought a lawsuit seeking division of property against C on February 26, 2008 (Seoul Family Court Decision 2008Rahap36), which was owned by C, and provisionally attached No. 302 of the Seoul Gangseo-gu E building No. 302 (Seoul Family Court Decision 2008Ma203).

C. Meanwhile, inasmuch as C entered into a sales contract on No. 302 of the above E building, and died for a long time after the filing of the lawsuit for division of property, the Defendant agreed to handle the above sales price with D as the Plaintiff’s agent, including KRW 52 million, and KRW 92 million, as the Plaintiff’s agent, as the Plaintiff’s share, and KRW 40 million, and the Defendant’s share, and received KRW 92 million from D according to the above agreement.

The Plaintiff kept the Plaintiff’s share of KRW 52 million to the Defendant, and both the application for provisional attachment and the claim for division of property were withdrawn.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements in Gap's 1, 2, 4 through 9 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. On the ground of the Defendant’s embezzlement, the Plaintiff selectively sought the return of custody money of KRW 52 million, which the Defendant received as the Plaintiff out of the purchase money of KRW 302 of the building No. 302, or the return of unjust enrichment on the ground of the Defendant’s embezzlement. On the other hand, the Defendant asserts that the said KRW 52 million was not the money in custody on the premise of the return to the Plaintiff.

According to the basic facts, the defendant may recognize that he received KRW 52 million from D as the plaintiff's share of the purchase price of the building No. 302, and thus, the defendant is obligated to refund to the plaintiff the deposit amount of KRW 52 million and damages for delay calculated from the day following the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case with bonds with no time limit. The evidence submitted by the defendant alone leads to the above recognition and the above KRW 52 million.