1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff was running a new business of constructing six-household lending loans on the land of Ansan-gu Incheon Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant business”).

After completing the registration of ownership preservation in the name of the owner D with respect to the whole new loan, the plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to New loan E and F to the defendant.

At the time, the defendant paid off the debt to D with the loan from the G Fund, and the registration of creation of a new loan E and F in the name of the G Fund was completed.

At the time, the Plaintiff paid 7,764,410 won in total (hereinafter “instant expenses”) for the Defendant, including the cost of registering the transfer of each ownership and the registration of the establishment of the neighboring mortgage on New Loans E and F, for the Defendant.

Accordingly, the defendant obtained the benefit of the amount equivalent to the expense of this case without any legal ground.

Therefore, the plaintiff is obligated to return 7,764,410 won to the plaintiff.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the respective entries in the evidence Nos. 1 through 7 (including additional numbers) and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking the return of loans, and received a judgment against the Defendant on April 10, 2013 (Seoul Western District Court 2012Gaso65307). A judgment was rendered at the appellate court (Seoul Western District Court 2013Na4375) on December 12, 2013, and the appeal was rendered at the appellate court (Seoul Western District Court 2013Na435) on April 24, 2014. The judgment of the Supreme Court of final appeal (Supreme Court 2014Da3443) against the Defendant became final and conclusive on April 28, 2014, under the premise that the subject-matter of lawsuit against the Defendant at the time was an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the settlement of expenses incurred in the instant project.

Thus, the subject matter of the lawsuit in this case is the same as the subject matter of the judgment against which the plaintiff had previously received, and therefore, it is true.