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

In this regard, the defendant has been represented by the lease contract between the plaintiff and E, but only delivered the security deposit received from E to the leaser on a deposit basis, and there is no fact that he has acquired it.

It argues that the extinctive prescription has been completed.

2. In the case of seeking a return of unjust enrichment, the other party must prove that he has acquired unjust enrichment without any legal grounds, and the burden of proof shall be borne by the party asserting it.

However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant acquired the amount equivalent to the deposit money for the instant apartment, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, in addition to the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including the paper number), the inquiry inquiry reply to the head of the Dong in Gangdong-gu Seoul, and the whole pleadings in the result of the Defendant’s personal examination, the Defendant’s husband G purchased three apartment bonds including the instant apartment bonds for punishment of three to four hundred million won, which the Defendant’s husband G obtained from his father H, and the G’s Dong’s Dong completed the registration of ownership transfer of the instant apartment on February 21, 2002; the Defendant’s wife at the time of real estate brokerage as the wife around January 27, 2006 on behalf of the Plaintiff, concluded the lease money for lease money of 190,000,000,000,000,000 won from March 17, 2006 to 30,5016.