1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On August 30, 2012, the Defendant purchased, at the auction procedure (this court C; hereinafter “the instant auction procedure”), D apartment E (hereinafter “instant apartment”) at KRW 247,777,00 from the purchase price, and completed the registration of creation of the right to collateral security (hereinafter “the instant right to collateral security”) with the maximum debt amount of KRW 21.6 million in the F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”) on the same day.

B. On November 6, 2014, the Defendant sold the instant apartment in KRW 3550 million, and completed the registration of ownership transfer and the cancellation of the instant mortgage on December 19, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The plaintiff's assertion is the family-friendly relationship of G, the husband of the plaintiff.

The plaintiff and the defendant purchased the apartment of this case together with the apartment of this case, and the plaintiff and the defendant have divided the apartment of this case into two parts.

In the course of selling the apartment of this case, the Defendant gains the benefit of KRW 95 million (i.e., KRW 355 million (i., KRW 355 million) in the course of selling the apartment of this case - KRW 260 million (i.e., purchase cost - KRW 200 million), and thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 47.5 million and delay damages.

B. The facts below are without dispute between the parties, or can be acknowledged by the parties’ evidence Nos. 13-2, Eul evidence No. 13-2, Eul evidence No. 2-3, Eul evidence No. 3-4, and the purport of the witness H’s testimony and the whole pleadings.

According to the facts, it is insufficient to recognize that the fact that the Plaintiff was admitted as evidence has concluded a contract that reflects the resale profit of the apartment of this case with the Defendant.

Plaintiff

The argument is without merit.

(1) There is no document prepared by the Defendant with the Plaintiff before the purchase of the instant apartment.

(2) In the instant auction procedure, the Defendant fully borne the sales price of the instant apartment.

The Plaintiff paid KRW 13.1 million among the purchase deposit, but the Plaintiff received the money in the middle of the auction procedure of this case.