1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant completed the marriage report on September 9, 201, but on January 30, 2013, reported divorce on January 30, 201.

B. On May 4, 2013, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement consisting of KRW 20 million per month and KRW 500,000 per month of rent (hereinafter “instant lease”) with respect to D apartment 35 and 309, Gangnam-gu, Seoul. The Plaintiff paid KRW 20 million ( KRW 1.8 million on May 4, 2013, and KRW 18.2 million on May 29, 2013).

C. On May 30, 2013, the Plaintiff paid to the Defendant an amount equivalent to KRW 40,770,000.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion is obligated to lend deposit amount of KRW 20 million to the defendant under the lease agreement of this case, or trust the tenant's name in preparation for compulsory execution by the plaintiff's creditor, and to temporarily deposit KRW 40,770,000. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the amount of KRW 20 million or return the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the above amount, and to return the amount of KRW 40,770,00 in custody.

B. The plaintiff argued that the plaintiff paid a security deposit under the pretext of the implementation of the promise or the divorce that he had made to the defendant, and that the amount of KRW 40 million during the marriage was paid as consolation money for verbal abuse and assault inflicted by the plaintiff during the marriage period, and the remainder was paid as living expenses. Thus, the plaintiff cannot accept his claim, and the plaintiff requested that all of the defendant live together after filing an application for the payment order identical to the above case, and the above application was withdrawn. Thus, the claim in this case is inconsistent with the preceding act and thus unjust.

3. The Plaintiff is simply the lessee in order to avoid the compulsory execution, etc. by the Plaintiff’s obligee, solely on the basis of each of the evidence Nos. 8 and 9.