1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3.(a)

Upon application for the return of provisional payments, the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. 1) On August 3, 2010, J prior to the instant lawsuit, at the Busan District Court I’s I’s International Auction on August 3, 2010, GBL, a multi-family housing of five-story above the five-story plot of land (hereinafter “instant loan”).

On October 1, 2010, upon receiving a successful bid, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on October 1, 2010. “W and H, on July 27, 2010, when the compulsory auction procedure for the above real estate was in progress, shall be subject to the J of the instant loan, but H, instead of J, shall exercise the entire authority as owner, such as the sale and purchase of the said loan, establishment of a collateral security, establishment of a lease on a deposit basis, and transfer of ownership, and shall fulfill the obligation as a mandatory, in good faith.”

2) On May 23, 201, J: (a) on May 23, 201, sold the loan of this case to Daean consulting Co., Ltd.; and (b) on October 27, 2011, Daean consulting Co., Ltd. completed the principal registration based on the provisional registration of the right to claim transfer of ownership.

3) The Plaintiff received a successful bid for the instant real estate, which was No. 201, from Busan District Court DD’s judgment, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on November 29, 2012. On March 2, 2012, H asserted that he was the construction cost creditor who was awarded a successful bid for the said loan, and filed a lien report in the auction procedure for the said real estate rental. 4) The Defendants were transferred the instant real estate from H, who reported the lien, to H’s husband and wife, and occupied and used the said real estate from June 23, 2011.

5) Around September 30, 201, monthly rent of the instant real estate was assessed to the extent of KRW 375,000. B. The Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendants as the Busan District Court Decision 2013Da13425, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendants for the delivery of the instant real estate and the return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent, and the court of first instance rendered a judgment citing the Plaintiff’s claim on February 20, 2014.

2. On the judgment of the first instance court, the Defendants “H” refers to the instant case.