1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff owned and occupied the instant apartment on September 29, 2008 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) indicated in the attached list on September 29, 2008.

(2) The Plaintiff and the Defendant resided in the instant apartment complex from around that time, and were in de facto marital relationship. A de facto marital relationship was terminated around August 26, 2014.

3) The Defendant continues to reside in the instant apartment even thereafter. (B) On April 17, 2012, the Plaintiff extended a loan of KRW 30,90,000 from the C bank as collateral for the instant apartment (hereinafter “the first loan”).

The plaintiff and the defendant used the first loan as living expenses or the defendant's car center operation funds.

2) On February 26, 2015, the Plaintiff created an additional maximum debt amount of KRW 7,320,000 on the instant apartment and extended loans of KRW 37,00,000 from C Bank by means of repayment loan (hereinafter “second loan”).

(2) The Plaintiff received the loan amounting to KRW 14,322,21, which remains as the second loan, and the remainder of KRW 22,656,738 (hereinafter “the second loan principal”).

(3) The second loan was fully repaid on October 30, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of claim and the defendant's assertion

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to deliver the apartment of this case to the owner of the apartment of this case and return unjust enrichment equivalent to the profit from the possession and use of the apartment of this case by the completion date of its delivery, unless there are special circumstances.

Furthermore, examining the amount of unjust enrichment to be returned by the Defendant, the fact that the apartment of this case is the difference of KRW 300,000 per month does not conflict between the parties.