beta
(영문) 대구지방법원 2017.06.28 2016나312279

부당이득금

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 1, 2015, the Plaintiff purchased the instant vehicle from C, a land owner of the said vehicle, with the consent of the former Distribution Company, which is the owner of the D Treatment 25 tons Car Truck (hereinafter “instant vehicle”), at KRW 16 million. On May 2, 2015, the Plaintiff received the instant vehicle after paying the purchase price in full to C on May 2, 2015.

B. Since then, the Plaintiff entrusted H with the sale of the instant vehicle and delivered documents necessary for the registration of its transfer, and H, around May 6, 2015, stated that the Plaintiff should pay the purchase price to the Plaintiff, since the said vehicle was owned by the Plaintiff while re-entrusted the sale of the instant vehicle to the Defendant operating E, and that the said vehicle should be paid to the Plaintiff.

On the same day, the defendant registered the transfer of the above vehicle under the name of the defendant.

C. On October 19, 2015, the Defendant sold the instant vehicle to G Co., Ltd. in KRW 16 million (excluding value-added tax) and received full payment from the said company on the same day.

On October 21, 2015, the instant vehicle was registered for the transfer of name in the name of G Co., Ltd.

The Plaintiff asserted the ownership of the instant vehicle to the Defendant before the Defendant sold the instant vehicle to G Co., Ltd., and demanded the return thereof, but the Defendant rejected it.

【Unsatisfyal grounds for recognition】 Insatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, 9, 10, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 5 (including branch numbers, if any), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of claim, the Defendant was merely entrusted with the sale of the instant vehicle by the Plaintiff, and was re-entrusted from H without independent disposal authority, such as ownership. Thus, the Defendant’s continuous possession of the instant vehicle, which was received from G Co., Ltd., without paying the purchase price to the Plaintiff, without any legal ground.