1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 15, 1977, Red Doz., an incorporated foundation, purchased a wooden tank 307.4 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) and a splate land 141.49 square meters business office located on the land and completed the registration of ownership transfer at that time, after purchasing a wooden tank 40.33 square meters of housing with 40.33 square meters and a block splate housing with 34.21 square meters (hereinafter “instant existing building”).

B. The existing building of this case was demolished, and around 70 square meters on the ground of the land of this case constructed a mentmen’s mentmen’s stone structure and a mentmen’s stone structure (hereinafter “new building of this case”) and thereafter extended the wall and roof of this building to approximately 25 square meters, a mentmen’s stone structure and a mentmen’s stone structure (hereinafter “the extension of this case”).

However, without reflecting the actual status of the instant building up to the date of registration injury, the instant building on the ground is indicated as “a wooden splate splate roof general restaurant with a 141.9 square meters” and “40.33 square meters, a wooden splate roof general restaurant with a splate roof,” and “a splate roof general restaurant with a 34.21 square meters.21 square meters.”

(hereinafter referred to as "the building of this case" is added to the building newly constructed and expanded as above.

On April 27, 2005, the defendant purchased the building of this case from Red Dol Association, and completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the defendant on the building of this case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 6, and 7 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. On May 192, 192, the Plaintiff constructed the instant extension at the Plaintiff’s expense, but the ownership of the instant building, including the instant extension, was reverted to the Defendant. Accordingly, the Defendant unfairly acquired KRW 40,650,000, which is the amount equivalent to the building price.