1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. A. Around May 2004, the Plaintiff’s mother C lent KRW 90 million to the Defendant, but in consultation with the Defendant on October 2, 2008, the Plaintiff’s mother received payment from the Defendant, in lieu of paying the above loan, Ulsan-gu Doz. 103 (hereinafter “instant loan”). Meanwhile, the Defendant’s reply is indicated as 102, but it appears to be a clerical error due to mistake), and the transfer registration was to be made in the name of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff.

B. However, in relation to the above agreement, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff’s succession to the obligation to return the lease deposit of KRW 21 million to the existing lessee who had resided in the Loan of this case at the time, and the obligation of KRW 21 million to the obligor’s maximum debt amount of KRW 28 million, the actual obligation secured by the right to collateral security with the obligor’s maximum debt amount of KRW 28,000,000,000, was paid by the Defendant as payment in lieu of payment in lieu of the Plaintiff. In light of the fact that C’s provisional attachment of 10,000,000,

C. Nevertheless, on November 20, 2014, the Defendant: (a) forged a lease agreement of KRW 50 million with respect to the instant loan between E and E; (b) made E move into a new lessee; and (c) used the lease deposit received from E for the repayment of the debt secured by the right to collateral security and the return of the lease deposit to the existing lessee.

On September 20, 2016, the rebuilding and consolidation project association of this case returned the above lease deposit of KRW 50 million to E and claims for reimbursement to the Plaintiff. The Defendant is obligated to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages incurred to the Plaintiff or the damages incurred to the Plaintiff, or for the damages incurred to the Defendant’s unjust profit, including KRW 50 million.

2. Determination

A. As to the above assertion by the Plaintiff, each evidence (Evidence A to A) of the Plaintiff’s submission is sufficient to deem that the Defendant incurred considerable loss to the Plaintiff due to the Plaintiff’s obligation to return the lease deposit to E.

(b).