1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 4, 2006, the Plaintiff (Lessee) entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “the instant lease agreement”) with the Defendant with respect to the 103-dong 306 of Yansan-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant apartment”) owned by the Defendant, and resided in the said apartment from September 24, 2006 to June 26, 2016.

Calculation Period (won) From October 11, 2006 to October 31, 2006 to October 31, 2006, 2006 to May 1, 201, 2016 to May 1, 201,780,200 to June 1, 2016 to June 13, 2016 to June 26, 2016 to 1,804,080

B. While residing in the instant apartment, the Plaintiff paid the long-term repair appropriations of KRW 1,804,080 (hereinafter “the instant long-term repair appropriations”) to the management office by including them in management expenses as follows:

C. On July 12, 2016, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a content-certified mail stating that KRW 1,804,080 of the long-term repair appropriations of this case paid by himself/herself to the Defendant shall be returned until July 20, 2016.

【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap Nos. 1, 2, and Eul No. 1 (including virtual numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Since the Plaintiff was the Defendant, who is the owner of the instant apartment, the obligor for the payment of the instant long-term repair appropriations, the Defendant should return the said KRW 1,804,080 paid by the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

B. Defendant 1) The Defendant did not receive the notice of payment of the long-term repair appropriations of this case, and thus, the Defendant’s liability for payment is not established. 2) The Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed implicitly to pay the instant long-term repair appropriations instead of leasing the instant apartment at a lower price than the market price.

3. Of the amount claimed by the Plaintiff, the obligation to pay the long-term repair appropriations from 2006 to 2012 has expired by the three-year prescription period pursuant to Article 163 subparagraph 1 of the Civil Act. Therefore, the Defendant is the Plaintiff.