1. Defendant B received 40 million won from the Plaintiff, and at the same time, the Plaintiff is the G ground of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

1. The fact that the Plaintiff newly constructed a multi-household 9 households not registered on G in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant building”) by taking the Plaintiff’s cost and effort is not disputed between the parties, or by adding the whole purport of the pleadings to the statement in the evidence No. 6.

2. Part of the claim against the defendant B

A. (1) On September 4, 2012, the Plaintiff and Defendant B entered into a real estate lease agreement with the content that deposit 40 million won is paid in lump sum on the day of the contract as to the instant building 101, and the contract period is 24 months, and the Defendant B occupied the instant building 101 by being handed over from that time.

(2) On September 4, 2012, the Plaintiff prepared and issued a receipt that received KRW 40 million from Defendant B of the instant building 101.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute between the parties, entry of evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff merely prepared receipts (No. 2) with Defendant B’s relationship and the Plaintiff’s friendship H’s request, and that Defendant B did not receive the lease deposit of KRW 40 million and did not have the right to possess the instant building 101. Thus, the Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff sought the delivery of the instant building 101.

As to this, Defendant B paid 40 million won to the Plaintiff, and Defendant B asserted that, although the lease contract term expired on September 4, 2014, the deposit was not returned from the Plaintiff, Defendant B merely occupied the instant building 101 because it did not return the deposit from the Plaintiff.

C. As long as the evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 provides that the authenticity of a disposal document is recognized, the court shall recognize the existence and content of the declaration of intent as stated in the evidence, unless there is any clear and acceptable counter-proof that denies the content of the statement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da67602, 67619, Jul. 9, 2009).