1. The plaintiff's appeal and the plaintiff's claim expanded in the trial are all dismissed.

2. Costs of appeal; and

1. The key issue of the instant case and the key issue of the first instance judgment are “whether the Defendant arbitrarily uses the Plaintiff’s money by means of lending or monthly rent or receiving child support double payments, etc.”

In regard to this, the first instance court determined that it is difficult for the Defendant to regard it as unjust enrichment by using the Plaintiff’s money at will, in light of the fact that the Defendant appears to have been delegated the authority to receive monthly rent by the Plaintiff, the attorney-at-law has been delegated for the Plaintiff, and the Roba has been entrusted for the Plaintiff, and that the decision to recommend a settlement has become final and conclusive as paying a certain amount of monthly child support in the child support lawsuit between the Plaintiff and

2. In full view of the judgment of the court of this case, the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant, and the above circumstances and evidence based on the judgment of the court of first instance, the conclusion that the defendant's unjust enrichment of the plaintiff's money is not sufficient, and the plaintiff's claim cannot be accepted on a different premise.

Therefore, the court's explanation on the instant case is identical to the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing it in accordance with Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim (including the damages for delay extended in the trial) shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal and the claims extended in the trial are dismissed as it is without merit.