부당이득반환
1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. The reasoning of this Court’s judgment is as follows: (a) by adding the following judgments to “5 pages 1 of the first instance judgment”; (b) by converting “3. conclusion” into “4. conclusion”, this Court’s judgment is identical to the entry of the first instance judgment; and (c) thereby, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
3. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment
A. Even if the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendants purchased each of the instant real estate after concluding a sales contract with the Hysung & C, ① did not conclude a sales contract in accordance with the sales contract with the Plaintiff’s management number; ② Defendant A did not conclude a sales contract under the supply contract with the Plaintiff, etc.; and ② did not conclude a sales contract with the Plaintiff, etc.; and the Plaintiff paid only the down payment out of the sales price to the Hysung & C; ③ Defendant B, Defendant C, and Defendant D did not pay the sales price to the designated account under the Plaintiff’s name when concluding a sales contract with each of the instant real estate; thus, the Defendants cannot assert the effect of each of the above sales contracts. ④ In the case of the real estate security trust as seen in the instant case, the legal principle of the transfer for security applies mutatis mutandis, and the mortgagee may claim against the third party who was legally occupied by the obligor for the transfer of the building. Ultimately, the Defendants’ illegal possession constitutes an illegal possession.
B. 1) Determination 1) With respect to the part that did not conclude a sales contract to which the management number was assigned, the fact that the Donative D&C has the power to sell each of the instant real estate as seen earlier, and there is no evidence consistent with the Plaintiff’s assertion that only the sales contract under the sales contract to which the Plaintiff assigned the management number should be recognized as a valid contract. Thus, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit. 2) Defendant A et al.