건물명도
1. The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiff the building indicated in the attached list.
2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.
3...
1. Determination as to a request for the delivery of a building
A. In full view of the purport of the entire argument in Gap evidence No. 4 as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff is the owner of the building listed in the attached list (hereinafter "the building of this case"), and the defendant, the mother of C in a de facto marital relationship with the plaintiff, who was the mother of C, occupies the building of this case as of the date of closing argument of this case.
Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant, the possessor of the instant building, is obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff seeking delivery as the owner of the instant building.
B. The defendant's assertion is alleged to the effect that the plaintiff was registered as the owner of the building of this case, but actually purchased the building of this case as C's income, and the defendant possessed the building of this case with the consent of C. However, the evidence submitted in this case alone is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
The defendant's above assertion is without merit.
2. Determination on the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was to borrow KRW 15 million from the Defendant, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 20 million according to the Defendant’s demand.
Accordingly, the defendant gains a profit of five million won without any legal ground, and the plaintiff suffered a loss equivalent to the same amount.
Therefore, the defendant should return the unjust enrichment of five million won to the plaintiff.
B. According to the evidence evidence Nos. 7 and 8, the Plaintiff received KRW 15 million from C on May 26, 2012, and the Plaintiff may recognize the fact that he/she remitted to the Defendant a total of KRW 20 million on three occasions on June 11, 2015.
However, such recognition alone is solely based on the fact that the Plaintiff received 15 million won from C as alleged by the Plaintiff. KRW 20 million, which the Plaintiff remitted to the Defendant, is repaid for the said borrowed amount, or the actual Plaintiff’s borrowed amount is KRW 15 million.