1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Basic Facts

A. The plaintiff and the defendant are married couple on December 27, 1985.

On the basis of the parcel number at the time of each transfer of ownership to real estate Seoul Special Metropolitan City and C.

Plaintiff

On September 24, 1976, September 24, 2007, Seoul Metropolitan Government (the date of acquisition of public land on January 10, 2007) 707,66,7402, 1230/1428 square meters out of 767 square meters in Eunpyeong-gu, Seoul 3, 342 square meters and 357/1428 square meters in Eunpyeong-gu, Seoul, 342 square meters and 661 square meters in 357/1428 of 357 square meters in Eunpyeong-gu, 207 (the date of registration) 1, the date of acquisition of ownership (the date of registration) and the date of disposal (the date of registration) of the ownership transfer (the date of registration) 1, the date of disposition (the date of August 18, 1976) - the donation made on September 18, 2007 (the date of acquisition of public land on January 10, 2007)

B. On September 24, 1976, the Plaintiff acquired and owned each of the instant real estate listed below (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”). As indicated below, the Plaintiff transferred the ownership of each of the instant real estate to Seoul Special Metropolitan City on January 12, 2007, and to C on May 23, 2007 and May 29, 2007.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, and 5 (including virtual numbers), and each of the instant real estate donated by the plaintiff's assertion of the purport of the whole pleadings before the plaintiff's marriage with the defendant is the plaintiff's unique property. Thus, the disposal price also constitutes the plaintiff's unique property.

However, since the defendant withdraws KRW 908,748,402 from the proceeds of the above disposal, which was kept separately in the account in the name of the plaintiff, without permission, the defendant is obligated to refund the amount equivalent to the above amount to the plaintiff as unjust enrichment and pay the delay damages.

Judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is based on the premise that the disposal price of each real estate of this case can be specified separately from the original Defendant’s co-owned property, etc., and that the Defendant withdrawn the Plaintiff’s unique property beyond the scope of the daily living fund possessed by the Defendant. Therefore, this is first given.