A. On April 27, 1990, the Defendant purchased 83.26 square meters of 1st floor and 50.76 square meters of 2nd floor of a multi-household housing with the site and the ground brick slock slock slock slock slock slock slive roof (hereinafter “instant real estate”) on April 27, 190, and entered into a title trust agreement with the Plaintiff,

6. 12. The registration of ownership transfer is completed in the name of the Plaintiff.

B. As to the instant real estate, the Defendant: (a) set up a mortgage on August 29, 1992 with a maximum debt amount of KRW 140,000,000 with respect to the instant real estate at the Japanese Bank; and (b) obtained a loan by setting up a mortgage on July 15, 1996 with a maximum debt amount of KRW 100,000,000 with respect to the instant

C. Around 2007, the Defendant donated the instant building to the Plaintiff.

After that, upon delegation from the Plaintiff on September 5, 2014, the Defendant sold the instant real estate to D in KRW 277,000,000. Of the purchase price, KRW 147,00,000 out of the purchase price was used to repay the debt of each of the above-mentioned collateral security loans to Japanese bank, and returned to the Plaintiff only the remainder of KRW 130,000,000.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, even though the Defendant donated the instant real estate to the Plaintiff, a title trustee, and sold the instant real estate for KRW 277,000,000,000, which was delegated by the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff, but was sold to the Plaintiff at KRW 277,000,000, out of the purchase price, the Plaintiff used the instant real estate to repay its own debt, and returned only the remainder of KRW 130,000,000 to the Plaintiff, without any legal cause, obtained profit of KRW 147,00,000 and suffered property damage equivalent to the same amount. Thus, the Defendant is obligated to return the Plaintiff’s unjust enrichment of KRW 147,00,000,000, barring

B. As to this, the defendant, around 2007, would not dispose of the real estate of this case until the plaintiff is alive, and the defendant would dispose of the real estate of this case after the mother's death.