1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part regarding the claim for return of unjust enrichment from April 20, 2017 to May 31, 2017, among the instant lawsuit.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 28, 2016, the Defendant entered into a lease contract with D on a deposit basis with regard to the term “the instant apartment (hereinafter “instant apartment”) Nos. 202, Dong 1602, Dong 1602 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) owned by D between the Plaintiff and D on June 28, 2016, with the amount of KRW 30 million per month and KRW 1.3 million per month.

B. Around July 2016, the Plaintiff delivered KRW 80,000,000 to the Defendant, and the Defendant paid KRW 30,000,000 out of the said money.

On September 2016, the Plaintiff, with the consent of the Defendant and the lessor, drafted a lease agreement in which the lessee of the apartment of this case is the Plaintiff.

C. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking delivery, etc. of the instant apartment on the ground that the lessee of the instant apartment is himself/herself (Seoul High Court Decision 2016Dadan87844).

On May 12, 2017, the above court rendered a judgment that "the defendant has delivered the apartment of this case to the plaintiff, and the defendant has occupied and used the apartment of this case from September 2016 to April 19, 2017, with the amount equivalent to the rent of 9,10,000 won set off from the defendant's claim 3,55,920 won against the plaintiff from September 20, 2016 to April 20, 2017, the above judgment that "the defendant has paid the amount of 1,30,000 won per month from April 20, 2017 to April 1, 200," and the above judgment became final and conclusive at that time.

hereinafter referred to as the "first-class case"

(i) [The facts without dispute over the basis of recognition, entry of Gap evidence 12 through 16, and 18, and the purport of the whole pleadings;

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Defendant received KRW 80,000,000 from the Plaintiff under the pretext that the Defendant is living together with the physically disabled and the lower intellectual ability C.

However, the defendant entered into a lease contract under the name of the defendant with the agreement that the name of the tenant of the lease contract of this case shall be the plaintiff, and the plaintiff also rejected the plaintiff's request for the evacuation of the apartment of this case.