1. The claim of this case is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On January 10, 2007, the Plaintiff purchased the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C Apartment No. 102 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) from the land trust corporation (hereinafter “instant apartment”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer on January 26, 2007.

B. The establishment registration of the instant apartment was completed with respect to the instant apartment as of February 14, 2007, by the Seoul Central District Court No. 11323, the maximum debt amount “150 million won,” the debtor “Plaintiff”, the mortgagee of the right to collateral security, and the Defendant “Defendant”.

C. On February 23, 2007, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 100 million to the Defendant, and on March 12, 2007, the registration of the establishment of the above root was cancelled.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion (1) stated that the Plaintiff issued a certificate of personal seal impression and a certificate of personal seal impression to D, a licensed real estate agent at the time of purchase of the apartment of this case. Since the Defendant or D prepared a mortgage contract without authority by using the above certificate of personal seal impression and the certificate of personal seal impression, the registration of the establishment of a

However, the Plaintiff paid KRW 100 million to the Defendant in order to cancel the registration of the establishment of the above neighboring mortgage even though the Plaintiff did not have a debt against the Defendant.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to return this to the plaintiff because he obtained a benefit without any legal ground.

(2) The Defendant alleged that he had lent the above money to the Plaintiff by remitting the amount of KRW 87 million to the account in the name of D, and received the payment.

B. In full view of the above facts of recognition No. 1 and the purport of the entire pleadings, it can be acknowledged that the defendant lent KRW 87 million to the plaintiff, but received the principal and interest from the plaintiff, and the statement of evidence No. 4 alone is insufficient to reverse this, and there is no other counter-proof, and therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that the payment to the defendant is non-debted, and there is no legal ground.

3. Therefore, the conclusion is reasonable.