1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

3. Paragraph (b) of the text of the judgment of the first instance.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal of the pertinent part of the judgment of the court of first instance as stipulated in the following paragraph (2). Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 4

2. Following the third day of the judgment of the court of first instance, "no evidence exists to acknowledge it" in Part 5, following the third day of the judgment of the court of first instance. Each "No evidence to acknowledge it" was added to each "No. 6th day of the judgment of the court of first instance," each "no. 12th day of the judgment of the court of first instance, 2016," and "No. 16th day after December 16, 2016," and "No. Da. Da. theory" in Part 16 was added to "No. Da. Da. theory," and "No evidence to acknowledge the defendant's right of possession of apartment building of this case, even if the defendant did not recognize the defendant's right of possession of apartment building of this case, since the defendant substituted the plaintiff's automatic loan 81,81,91 won, the defendant did not have any evidence to acknowledge that the defendant's right of set-off against the defendant's repayment of unjust enrichment against the defendant.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims shall be dismissed as it is without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is just, the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is obvious that the part of the judgment of the court of first instance " December 12, 2016" in Article 1 (b) of the order of the court of first instance is a clerical error of " December 16, 2016."