1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;

1. Basic facts

A. On January 25, 2011, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer due to sale on January 9, 2011 with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

The defendant occupies the above immovables and resides therein.

B. As to the instant real estate, the lease agreement was concluded between the Plaintiff, the Defendant, the lease deposit amounting to KRW 5 million, monthly rent of KRW 300,000, and the period from December 14, 2015.

【Ground for Recognition: Unsatisfy Facts, Gap evidence 1, 4, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings】

2. The parties' assertion

A. Plaintiff 1) The Defendant terminated the instant real estate lease agreement due to the Defendant’s delinquency in rent. As such, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff and return unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent up to the time of delinquency and delivery. 2) The Plaintiff, as the owner of the instant real estate, sought a return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent up to the time of delivery and delivery to the Defendant.

B. Defendant 1) and C shared a part of the instant real estate purchase price (Defendant 20 million won, C10 million won, and KRW 10 million), but purchased the instant real estate in the name of the Plaintiff to maintain the beneficiary status. The Defendant cannot deliver the instant real estate before receiving settlement of the said KRW 20 million. 2) The Defendant lent the Plaintiff the sum of KRW 29 million from October 25, 2010 to October 26, 2017, to the Plaintiff at the time of selling the instant real estate in the future.

3. The Defendant, on May 12, 2018, has the right to attract the instant real estate based on the necessary or beneficial right to demand reimbursement, since the rooftop waterproof construction of the instant real estate was carried out on the rooftop waterproof construction.

3. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances, the evidence alone presented by the Plaintiff is insufficient to acknowledge that a lease agreement was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

Therefore, it is true.