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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of this court is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is accepted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. In this court’s additional determination, the Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the Defendant’s transfer of real estate No. 2 in the instant case to the Plaintiff without having received registration expenses to the Plaintiff and without having transferred it to the Plaintiff under one’s own name regardless of the intention of the network D constitutes a so-called “infringed unjust enrichment.” In such a case, the Defendant is responsible for proving that the transfer of ownership to the instant real estate No. 2 is

The Plaintiff’s assertion states, “The Civil Act Article 741 provides that “A person who benefits from another person’s property or labor without any legal cause and thereby causes damage to another person shall return such benefit.”

The burden of proving that there is no legal ground in the case of the so-called unjust enrichment that one party claims the return of the benefits after having paid a certain amount of benefits according to his/her own will on the grounds that there is no legal ground.

In such cases, a person who seeks the return of unjust enrichment shall assert and prove, together with the existence of the fact causing the act of payment, that the cause has ceased to exist due to the extinguishment of the said cause due to invalidation, cancellation, cancellation, etc., and that in the same case as the so-called mistake remittance made on the ground that there was no ground for the act of payment from the beginning, he/she shall assert and prove the fact that

This is the property rights of others.