1. The appeal by the defendant (appointed party) is dismissed;

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant (appointed party).

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 2003, the 11st unit owners of the aggregate building, EBD, located on the ground of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Gwanak-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Plaintiff, etc.”), including the Plaintiff, decided to remove the previous building and reconstruct two houses of the multi-household which consist of 18 households in total at the same place (hereinafter referred to as the “instant reconstruction loan”).

B. On October 2004, the Plaintiff et al. concluded a contract for the instant reconstruction loan construction with F, a construction business operator, and agreed as follows.

1) The plaintiff et al. completed the partitioned building of the total of 18 households, and the plaintiff et al. completed the divided building of the total of 11 households, and then the existing sectional owners have sold one household unit to preserve ownership, and the remaining seven households have completed the registration of transfer of ownership to a specific person designated by F in lieu of the payment of the remainder of the construction cost.

C. The reconstruction loan of this case was completed on October 2006, and it was above B.

-2) The real estate listed in the attached Form No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as “instant housing”) among the seven households that are to be provided to F as payment in kind, such as the agreement of Paragraph 2.

(D) On February 30, 2007, the registration of initial ownership in the name of 11 persons, including the Plaintiff, was completed upon entrustment of the registration of provisional disposition on February 20, 207 with respect to each of 1/11 shares of each of them. D. The Selection C is a construction business operator who subcontracted the construction work of the reconstruction loan of this case and the Defendant (Appointed) is a son of the appointed party C. The Selection C made a move-in report on the housing of this case on March 30, 2006 and used the housing of this case with the Defendant (Appointed) around that time. [The fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, evidence Nos. 1 and 2, evidence Nos. 1-1, 2, 2-2, and 3, and the purport of the entire pleadings as a whole.

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. According to the above recognition of the existence of the obligation to return unjust enrichment, it is examined.