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.

Facts of recognition

On March 9, 2009, the plaintiff and the defendant completed a marriage report, and lived as a legally married couple, and have two children under the chain.

On August 30, 2011, the Plaintiff and the Defendant purchased 1/2 shares of each of the first floor of the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C Building No. 102 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) and lived in the instant apartment.

On January 14, 2015, the Plaintiff and the Defendant married with each other, and the Defendant resided in the apartment of this case with one of his children until August 5, 2016, even after the divorce is established.

On the other hand, regarding the instant apartment, the establishment registration was completed on August 23, 2013, including the debtor, the plaintiff, the maximum debt amount of 156,000,000 won, and the establishment registration was completed on July 10, 2015, and D, who is the plaintiff, purchased the instant apartment on August 5, 2016, thereby losing the ownership of the instant apartment.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3, the plaintiff's assertion of the purport of the whole argument, and the plaintiff's assertion of judgment, the defendant resided in the apartment of this case and occupied and used exclusively the apartment of this case which is jointly owned, even after the plaintiff's divorce with the plaintiff.

Therefore, the Defendant, from January 15, 2015 following the day following the establishment of divorce, is obligated to return to the Plaintiff unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent of 1/2, which is the Plaintiff’s share, from January 15, 2015, until August 5, 2016 when the Plaintiff and the Defendant lost ownership of the instant apartment.

Judgment

The Plaintiff and the Defendant divorced on January 14, 2015, and the Defendant had resided in the instant apartment even thereafter by August 5, 2016. However, there was no dispute between the parties, but on the other hand, the Plaintiff left the instant apartment on or around May 27, 2014 on the ground that the Plaintiff left the instant apartment and started a separate occupation with the Defendant, and the Defendant did not live alone in the instant apartment, but rather, the Plaintiff and the Defendant.