1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, in respect of Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) B, which constitutes the following money ordering payment:

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 10, 2002, the Plaintiff did not submit a sales contract that included the content of a contract to take over the obligation of collateral security (right to collateral security (right to collateral security), Korea Bank Co., Ltd., the maximum debt amount of 132,000,000,000 won, which was set up on loan (hereinafter “the loan of this case”) between D and E as of September 10, 2002, and thus, it cannot be seen as to the total amount of the purchase price. However, the Plaintiff acquired the aforementioned collateral security debt amount of 110,000,000 won, and paid the purchase price by borrowing 60,000,000 won from F, the parties are not disputing.

(hereinafter “instant sales contract”) was concluded, and on October 10, 2002, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of the Plaintiff.

B. After that, the Plaintiff delivered the instant loan to Defendant C, his mother-friendly spouse, and allowed the Defendants to reside in the said loan, and the Defendants reside in the said loan until now.

C. Meanwhile, Defendant B paid the Plaintiff the amount equivalent to the interest out of the secured debt of the said right to collateral security after receiving the instant loan from the Plaintiff from the Plaintiff until September 2012, but there was no fact that the lease contract or monthly rent contract was made between the Plaintiff and the Defendants.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1-3, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 2, F's testimony of the party-trial witness F, purport of whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's main claim

A. The plaintiff asserted by the parties as the principal lawsuit, on the premise that the plaintiff entered into a lease agreement on the loan of this case with the defendant Eul as the owner of the loan of this case, but the above lease agreement was terminated as the owner of the loan of this case, the plaintiff filed a claim against the defendants for the delivery or withdrawal of the loan of this case and the return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the monthly rent, the defendants filed a claim against the defendants for the delivery or withdrawal of the loan of this case and the return of unjust enrichment.