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.

Plaintiff

The main purport of the argument is that the plaintiff purchased Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Da Apartment 14, 502 (hereinafter "the apartment of this case") from the Seoul Eastern District Court in the voluntary auction procedure and completed the registration of ownership transfer on February 2, 2010.

However, the Defendant, in collusion with D, prepared a false lease agreement and a receipt that received a deposit for lease on October 12, 2004 that D leased the instant apartment from the Defendant, in collusion with D, for the lease deposit of KRW 140 million.

D occupied the apartment of this case on the basis of a false lease agreement, and the plaintiff did not comply with the delivery of the plaintiff, and the plaintiff forced D to pay 140 million won.

Ultimately, due to the defendant, D gains profits equivalent to the above false deposit, and the plaintiff suffered a considerable loss, and the defendant is obligated to return unjust enrichment of KRW 140 million to the plaintiff and delay damages.

The following facts may be acknowledged as to the legitimacy of the defendant's appeal based on the records, the entry of Eul No. 2, and the response to an order issued by the head of the Si/Gun/Gu to submit tax information to Samsung Samsung Tax Office.

The Plaintiff applied for a payment order as Seoul Eastern District Court 201Guj9128 by stating the Defendant’s address as “Cheongju-si I apartment No. 407, 1001, Cheongju-gu I apartment.” However, the original copy of the payment order was not served as the instant lawsuit.

On March 7, 2012, the Plaintiff changed the service place of the Defendant to Seoul Gangnam-gu J building 539 (hereinafter “instant service place”).

Accordingly, the first instance court served the complaint and the litigation guide as the service place of this case.

On March 23, 2012, the service report is that the defendant himself/herself received the complaint and the litigation guide at the place of service of this case.

Since then, the first instance court served the plaintiff's written brief, notification of date, etc. as the service place of this case.