1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in the judgment is that evidence submitted at the court of first instance, which is insufficient to recognize the defendant's assertion that the plaintiff or her husband was threatened with harm and injury, or who was threatened with violence or intimidation by the plaintiff or her husband, and that it was insufficient to recognize the remaining facts of the defendant's assertion that the written agreement of this case was written. The defendant's assertion in the court of first instance is identical to the ground of the judgment, except for addition of the judgment below as to the defendant's argument in the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance

2. Additional determination

A. Defendant’s assertion 1) On September 25, 2017, which was after the judgment of the court of first instance was rendered by the Defendant, D, K, and L (hereinafter “D, etc.”) as the owner of the instant building.

(2) Even if D et al. received a claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent for the instant store owned by D et al. against the Plaintiff, the Defendant directly transferred the claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent for the instant store from D et al., on behalf of D et al., M, the agent of D et al., transferred KRW 126 million to the Defendant the claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent for the instant store.

3) It is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant directly transferred the claim amounting to KRW 126 million to the Defendant for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent for the instant store to the Defendant by making the claim amount against the Plaintiff as the automatic claim against the Plaintiff, and by making the statement on the evidence No. 10, No. 1000,000 against the Defendant. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

2. Meanwhile, considering the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 4, Eul evidence Nos. 15-1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 20, Eul evidence Nos. 22-1, 2, and 3, D, K, and L are co-owners of the building of this case, D shall be appointed as M as agent from Dec. 5, 199 to Dec. 5, 199, and all kinds of real estate owned by D.