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

Purport of claim and appeal

The defendant.

A. The Plaintiff purchased the instant house as the highest price buyer in the Daejeon District Court D D’s compulsory auction (hereinafter “prior compulsory auction”) regarding the Daejeon-gu Daejeon District Court’s Multi-Family Housing (hereinafter “instant Housing”). The Defendant, as a lessee in the above compulsory auction procedure, was distributed KRW 2,549,523 on October 2, 2001 by distribution as the lessee during the said compulsory auction procedure.

B. The Daejeon District Court E again conducted a compulsory auction (hereinafter referred to as the “voluntary auction”) with respect to the instant house, and the Defendant received dividends of KRW 12,00,700 on March 15, 2005 based on the lease registration already completed at the above auction procedure.

C. On May 13, 2005, the Plaintiff asserted that “In the case of a prior compulsory auction, the Defendant did not cancel the registration of the right of lease without cancelling it, and received dividends of KRW 12,000,700 on the basis of the right of lease registration and received dividends of KRW 12,00,700 from the subsequent compulsory auction case on the basis of the right of lease registration constitutes unjust enrichment.” On August 31, 2005, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for a claim for restitution of unjust enrichment with the Daejeon District Court Decision 2005Da128204, and “the Defendant from the above court” was sentenced to the Plaintiff to pay the amount calculated at the rate of KRW 12,00,70 and 20% per annum from March 15, 2005 to the date of full payment (hereinafter “instant judgment”). The above judgment became final and conclusive on September 21, 2005.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff, as a creditor of the claim to return unjust enrichment established by the judgment of this case, filed the instant lawsuit prior to the completion of extinctive prescription for the purpose of extending the extinctive prescription period of the said claim, the instant lawsuit may be recognized as a re-litigation for the interruption of extinctive prescription.

Therefore, the defendant, at the 12,000,700 won of the principal of the judgment of this case, applies to the plaintiff.