1. Of the judgment of the first instance, with respect to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) B, KRW 160,860,000 against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and its related thereto.

The plaintiff filed a claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the purchase price of apartment and the test cost of apartment and the test cost of air conditioners with respect to Defendant B or Defendant C at his option. The court of first instance accepted the claim against Defendant B for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the purchase price of apartment and the test cost of apartment and dismissed the claim against Defendant C.

Since Defendant B lodged an appeal against this, all claims against the Defendants were brought to the trial court. However, the claim against Defendant B was not subject to the trial court for the return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the cost of air conditioner installation that was dismissed.

In addition, the claim for storage money against Defendant B and the claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the cost of the household purchase were all dismissed, and since the Plaintiff filed an incidental appeal only to the claim for storage money, the claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the cost of the household purchase is not subject to

In the end, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the purchase price of the selective claimant against the Defendants and the claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the test cost (However, as seen later, since the judgment of the court of first instance against the Defendant B is maintained during the selective claim, it is no longer necessary to determine the Defendant C as a result) and the claim for the deposit money against the Defendant B and the claim for the counterclaim against the Defendant B.

The reasoning of this court’s explanation by the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the first instance judgment except for the following dismissal or addition. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(except for the part which is not subject to a trial by this Court). Any dismissal or addition of the part which is not subject to a trial by this Court shall add the following items to the 11th sentence (as of No. 9, No. 4):

“Although the Plaintiff and Defendant B did not jointly trust the name of the apartment in this case to Defendant C, the Plaintiff is an apartment in this case.