부당이득금
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The plaintiff's assertion as to the cause of claim
A. The plaintiff, the grounds for the claim and the claim in the complaint, has a claim for the amount of KRW 522,447,959 against D.
D Since the Seocho-gu Seoul E Apartment F (hereinafter “instant apartment”) purchased the price of KRW 2.725 billion for the purchase, the title trust agreement between D and the Defendant was null and void. However, since the seller acted in good faith in relation to the title trust and the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the Defendant is valid, D has a claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the purchase price against the Defendant.
The plaintiff, as a creditor D, exercises a claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the purchase price of D against the defendant based on the creditor's subrogation right.
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 31 million to the Plaintiff as part of the unjust enrichment equivalent to the above purchase price.
B. On October 21, 2010, the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim in the written application for the change of May 29, 2019, KRW 230 million was deposited from the Defendant’s account to the Defendant’s account. Of them, KRW 922,970 was used for national treasury payment.
The above KRW 9,922,970 is the defendant's payment to the National Treasury and there is no reason for D to pay the defendant's national treasury. Thus, the defendant made unjust enrichment from D without any legal ground.
Therefore, as a creditor of D, the Plaintiff exercises the right to return unjust enrichment of KRW 9,922,970 against the Defendant based on the obligee’s subrogation right.
C. The progress of the lawsuit and this court are above.
The purport and cause of the amended claim, such as the same paragraph, are not recognized to be identical to that of the previous claim, the cause of the claim, and the basis of the claim, and thus, the application for change was rejected on May 30, 2019 at the date of pleading on May 2, 2019. Thus, the claim and cause of the claim in the complaint
2. Determination
A. The relevant legal principles have filed a lawsuit against the third obligor by exercising the obligee’s subrogation right.