1. The Defendant’s KRW 300,000,000 as well as annual 5% from April 23, 2019 to June 18, 2020 to the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. After being detained on April 8, 2010 on the charge of killing a wife, the Plaintiff was sentenced to seven years of imprisonment at the appellate court and was released on June 30, 2016.

B. On December 3, 2010 where the Plaintiff was detained, the Defendant, a relative resident of the Plaintiff, entered into a contract to sell the Plaintiff’s land and the above ground warehouse buildings (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant real estate”) in the name of the Gyeonggi-si, Gyeonggi-si, and 2, which are owned by the Plaintiff, to D, KRW 1.75 million (the contract amount of KRW 175 million shall be paid on the date of the contract, and the remainder of KRW 1.55 million shall be paid on January 15, 201, and the remainder of the contract amount of KRW 1.55 million shall be paid on the date of the contract, but the collateral obligation of the collateral security, which was established on the instant real estate, shall be cancelled by the date of the remainder payment).

Since then, the defendant received the above purchase price from D, and completed the registration of ownership transfer concerning the real estate of this case to D.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendant arbitrarily disposed of the instant real estate owned by the Plaintiff without being delegated by the Plaintiff between the detained and the detained, and obtained profits equivalent to KRW 1,750,000,000, the purchase price of the instant real estate, and suffered damages equivalent to the same amount.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to return the above KRW 1.75 billion to the Plaintiff with unjust enrichment. First, the Defendant and the Defendant seek payment of damages for delay after January 15, 201, where the above purchase price was paid.

B. The gist of the defendant's assertion 1) In relation to the instant case, the plaintiff did not demand the defendant to pay more than KRW 100 million to the defendant, and accordingly, the defendant's living together paid KRW 100 million to the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff's lawsuit in this case shall be dismissed as violating the above additional action agreement. 2) The plaintiff who was detained at the time of the instant case, was appointed an attorney-at-law.