부당이득반환청구
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. Basic facts
A. On March 28, 2007, the Plaintiff: (a) completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter referred to as the “registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage”); (b) the obligor; and (c) the right to collateral security (hereinafter referred to as the “mortgage”); and (d) the right to collateral security (hereinafter referred to as the “mortgage”).
B. On July 2, 2007, the Defendant concluded a contract with D to transfer the instant right to collateral security, and concluded a transfer registration of collateral security in the name of D on July 3, 2007 on the ground of the said transfer contract.
C. As a result of D’s application for the auction of real estate rent based on the instant collateral security, the Plaintiff lost ownership of the instant land, and the Plaintiff was paid KRW 152 million from D according to the settlement recommendation decision made in the appellate court of the lawsuit seeking confirmation of existence of ownership (U.S. District Court 201Na44303) filed against D.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings
2. The plaintiff's assertion
A. The Plaintiff, the owner of the instant land, requested the Defendant to lend funds out of the funds for constructing the building on the ground of the instant land. The Defendant: (a) set up a collateral on the instant land, which constitutes a maximum debt amount of 400,000,000; (b) provided that the Defendant would lend the Jeju-do loan to the instant land.
As to the instant land on March 28, 2007, the Plaintiff believed that the Defendant created the instant right to collateral security, which constituted a maximum debt amount of 400,000,000, which is the subject of the right to collateral security.
B. However, unlike the promise, the Defendant did not lend KRW 400,000,000, and transferred the instant right to collateral security to D on July 3, 2007.
D applied for an auction of the instant land based on the instant mortgage, and as a result of the auction, the Plaintiff lost the ownership of the instant land.
C. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against D to confirm the existence of ownership of the instant land.