1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant shared a building, including Gyeonggicheon-gun Co., Ltd., 270 square meters and 87.36 square meters on the ground (hereinafter “instant 1st floor warehouse”). However, the Plaintiff and the Defendant received 1/2 of the amount of compensation for expropriation of the instant land and the instant 1st floor warehouse, as the building, including the said land and the instant 1st floor warehouse, was expropriated in accordance with the “Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works.”

B. The amount received by the Defendant as above includes 26,590,000 won, which is the amount equivalent to 1/2 of the amount of compensation for confinement for warehouse of the 1st floor of this case.

【Ground for recognition】An absence of dispute, and description of Gap evidence No. 4

2. Requests for return of unjust enrichment from compensation for losses;

A. Since the warehouse of the first floor of this case, the plaintiff's assertion, based on the agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant, should be owned solely by the plaintiff, the plaintiff should receive the entire compensation for losses, but the defendant received the above KRW 26,590,000, which corresponds to the first floor of this case, and thus, the plaintiff must return it

B. The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that there was an agreement between the parties to the agreement that the Plaintiff would own the warehouse of the first floor of this case as the sole owner, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for this part is without merit.

3. A claim for return of unjust enrichment on construction cost incurred by the Plaintiff in relation to the warehouse of the first floor of this case

A. Although the Plaintiff’s assertion on the alleged family affairs is not acknowledged, the Plaintiff fully bears the construction cost of the warehouse of the first floor of this case, and the Defendant shall return the construction cost to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

B. According to the facts without dispute and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff borne construction costs for the warehouse of the first floor of this case, and the Defendant around January 2005 or around February 2015, the above construction costs are 1/2 of the Plaintiff.