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

A. In order to secure the claim for loans against B on November 15, 2012, the Defendant received, from B, the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage of KRW 153,400,000 on the maximum debt amount with respect to multi-household 501 (hereinafter “instant house”) located in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant house”).

B. On March 11, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement between B and B by setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 50 million with respect to the instant housing as between March 11, 2013 and March 11, 2014 during the lease period. A lease agreement was concluded between March 11, 2013 and March 11, 2014; the Plaintiff filed a move-in report and obtained a fixed date.

C. On October 1, 2013, the Defendant received a voluntary decision to commence the auction on the instant housing as Seoul Northern District Court D, and on August 7, 2014, the distribution schedule was prepared to distribute KRW 117,716,120 to the Defendant based on the instant right to collateral security (hereinafter “instant auction procedure”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, 8 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion is a small lessee who is recognized as the top priority repayment right under the Housing Lease Protection Act with respect to the housing of this case. In the auction procedure of this case, the plaintiff was unable to receive notification of the completion period to demand a distribution due to defects in the delivery procedure of the auction court, and did not report the right and demand a distribution. Thus, in the auction procedure of this case, the plaintiff should be deemed to have made a demand for distribution before the legitimate completion date to demand a distribution. However, inasmuch as the plaintiff did not distribute the small rent deposit amount of KRW 20 million to the defendant and distributed the small rent deposit amount of KRW 20 million to the plaintiff, the defendant should return the above amount of KRW 20 million to the plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

Even if the plaintiff was notified of the completion period to demand distribution.

Even if the defendant made unjust enrichment, the above money is the same as that of the plaintiff.