1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On May 13, 2015, F, the Defendant’s mother of the primary facts, leased the instant house, which was not completed, from the Plaintiff, during the lease period from June 24, 2015 to June 23, 2017, and KRW 170 million as lease deposit, and around that time, paid the said deposit to the Plaintiff.

F, on May 30, 2017, notified the Plaintiff of the refusal to renew the instant lease agreement, but failed to refund the deposit.

F filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff (Seoul Southern District Court 2017Kadan28072) claiming the return of the lease deposit (Seoul Southern District Court 2017Kadan28072). On August 21, 2018, the court of first instance sentenced F to F to pay KRW 170 million to F at the same time as the Plaintiff received the instant house from F.

Therefore, although the plaintiff filed an appeal (Seoul Southern District Court 2018Na2818), the court of the second instance sentenced the dismissal of appeal on April 19, 2019, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on May 9, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserted by the parties, while the Defendant illegally occupied the instant house from July 13, 2017, the Plaintiff sought a return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the monthly rent from the delivery and illegal possession of the instant house against the Defendant.

The defendant, as a member of the same household as F, who is a tenant of the instant house, has left the resident registration of the instant house until the deposit for lease is returned from the plaintiff, and thus, he/she did not hold an illegal possession.

3. According to the purport of Gap evidence No. 2 and the entire pleadings, the defendant is deemed to have left his/her resident registration in the instant house from July 13, 2017, but there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant occupied the instant house.

Even if the defendant possessed the house of this case, according to the above facts, the defendant is based on the F's concurrent performance defense right as a F's family member.