1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. On January 26, 200, the Plaintiff and the Defendant maintained the marital relationship by maintaining the marital relationship. On the other hand, the Defendant brought a divorce lawsuit against the Plaintiff, including divorce (Seoul Family Court Decision 2012ddan9327, Jan. 30, 2013; Seoul Family Court Decision 2013Reu790, Sept. 24, 2013), which became final and conclusive on October 15, 2013.

[Ground of Recognition] Unstrifed Facts, Gap evidence 1 and 2 (including additional number)

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. (1) On April 23, 2002, the Plaintiff’s assertion and the Defendant’s husband and wife concluded a lease contract of KRW 70 million in the name of the Defendant with the directors of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 101, 604, and around April 23, 2002. The Defendant changed the terms and conditions of the lease contract and used the lease deposit with the lessor at the time of the termination of the lease contract by receiving the lease deposit from the lessor at the time of the termination of the lease contract, and eventually, on April 27, 2005, the lease deposit refunded by the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s husband and wife at the time of the termination of the lease contract was limited to KRW 2,186,00.

However, 35 million won out of the above lease deposit is the money owned by the plaintiff.

In other words, on November 30, 1998, the plaintiff prepared a lease deposit with the money of KRW 35 million he / she / she was living together with the defendant in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and around 1999, the plaintiff entered into a lease contract with the defendant in the above apartment around September 200 and entered into the lease contract with KRW 60 million in the name of the defendant while raising a marriage awareness and holding a director in Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan City around September 200, the above K apartment lease deposit was replaced by the above K apartment, and the above money (the deposit was paid as dividend at the wind of auction) again entered into as part of the deposit when the plaintiff moved into the Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C apartment and entered into the lease contract with KRW 70 million in the name of the defendant.