1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On January 28, 191, the Daegu District Court’s receipt of 7444 on January 28, 1991 with respect to the instant apartment Nos. 7 and 410 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) owned by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff was the debtor, and the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage of KRW 20,000,000 (hereinafter “registration of creation of a neighboring apartment”) was completed.

B. The public sale of the instant apartment was conducted on October 5, 200, and D accepted the bid of the instant apartment in the public sale procedure and completed the registration of ownership transfer on October 25, 200, and accordingly the registration of establishment of the neighboring apartment was revoked.

[Judgment of the court below] The ground for recognition is without merit, Gap evidence No. 3, and the ground for appeal

2. Determination

A. 1) Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The establishment registration of a neighboring apartment of this case was established without a claim and obligation between the Plaintiff and the Defendant for the purpose of preserving the Plaintiff’s ownership of the apartment of this case. The Defendant received dividends based on the instant right to collateral security during the public sale procedure, but did not return the remainder of KRW 23,00,000 among them to the Plaintiff. As such, the Defendant is obligated to return the remainder of KRW 23,000,000 to the Plaintiff. (2) The Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant completed the establishment registration of a neighboring apartment of this case in order to secure the Plaintiff’s claim arising from the transactional relationship between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, and returned the remainder of KRW 9,00,000,000, which settled the Defendant’s secured claim amount among the dividends received during the public sale procedure

Even if the plaintiff's claim for return of unjust enrichment exists, the statute of limitations has expired more than 10 years from the date of occurrence.

B. The facts stated in the evidence Nos. 1 through 9 alone are insufficient to recognize that the establishment registration of the instant root was made by means of a false conspiracy between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and otherwise recognize the Plaintiff’s assertion.