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

A. The Plaintiff owned 1,323/2,90 m2,907 m2 (hereinafter “instant real property”) in Gyeong-dong, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do, and the Defendant owned 1,584/2,907 m2 (hereinafter “instant real property”).

B. On June 9, 2015, the Plaintiff sold the Plaintiff’s co-ownership shares among the instant real estate to D and received KRW 50 million from D.

2. The Plaintiff asserted that, around June 2015, the Plaintiff sold all of the instant real estate, including the Plaintiff’s co-ownership, to a third party at KRW 130 million, including the Plaintiff’s co-ownership ( KRW 150,000,000 per 3.3 square meters per 3 square meters), and agreed to pay KRW 50,000,000 from D on June 9, 2015, but in fact, the Defendant sold the instant real estate to D at KRW 260,00,000 ( KRW 3,00,000 per 3.3 square meters per 3 square meters), and then embezzled the remainder after deducting KRW 50,000,000,000 which was already paid from the Plaintiff’s co-ownership share, and thus, the Defendant is liable to return it as unjust enrichment.

The sole descriptions of evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 5 are insufficient to deem that a sales contract for the real estate of this case was concluded between the original defendant and D with respect to the real estate of this case, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Rather, in full view of the statements in Eul evidence No. 3 and the fact-finding conducted by the judicial scrivener Eul of this court, the first original defendant attempted to sell all of the real estate of this case to D in the future, but in fact the original defendant decided to sell his share separately, and then the plaintiff sold his share in the real estate of this case to D in KRW 50 million.

Ultimately, the plaintiff's assertion cannot be accepted.

3. Conclusion.