1. On October 15, 2014, Suwon District Court Branch 2014Gaso24931, the Defendant’s repayment of deposit against the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. In Suwon District Court 2014Gaso24931 case where the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff, the conciliation was concluded on October 15, 2014 that “if the Plaintiff shall pay 8,00,000 won to the Defendant up to October 31, 2014, and if the payment is delayed, the amount unpaid shall be paid by adding the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from the day following the above payment date to the day of complete payment (hereinafter “instant conciliation”).” Under the instant conciliation protocol, the Defendant filed an application for compulsory auction of real estate owned by the Plaintiff with the Seoul East District Court C (hereinafter “instant compulsory auction”) and received a compulsory auction order on February 10, 2015, the Defendant spent KRW 53,160 as enforcement expenses.

B. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking payment of KRW 4,060,00 for the rent that is unpaid from May 17, 2012 to December 7, 2012, the Seoul Eastern District Court 2014Da3779, and the said court rendered a judgment on April 30, 2015 that “the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff 4,060,000 won and interest thereon at the rate of 20% per annum from January 2, 2015 to the day of full payment.”

On June 4, 2015, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 5,096,936 (hereinafter “instant deposit”) with the Defendant as the principal deposit and the Seoul East Eastern District Court KRW 1985 in 2015, and KRW 8,000,000, which was ordered under the instant conciliation protocol, deducted the aforementioned unpaid rent from KRW 4,060,00,00, which was deducted from the said unpaid rent from KRW 8,00,00.

The defendant reserved an objection and received the deposit money.

C. The defendant Na

The judgment of the first instance court stated in the claim was appealed, and the appellate court revoked the judgment of the first instance and the plaintiff's claim on December 4, 2015 on the ground that there is no evidence to prove that there was no agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant to pay the unpaid rent, and the defendant did not obtain unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent during the above period.