Seoul Yangcheon-gu ○

Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government ○

1. Ro-○○ (0000 - 000000)

Gwangju City 00

During the time of service, Gu 00

2. Prostitution○○ (00000 - 00000)

Seoul Songpa-gu ○

3. Ro-○○ (0000 - 000000)

Guri-si 00

Defendant 2 and 3 Law Firm Southern, Attorneys Yellow-gu et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Defendant 2 and 3’s attorney Park Chang-soo

A. Defendant Ro-○○ shall pay 7,579, 500, and 00 won with 20% interest per annum from April 20, 201 to the day of full payment. (b) Of the money stated in Defendant Ro-○ and each of the above paragraph (a), Defendant Ro-○ shall pay 27,80,000 won for Defendant Ro-○, Defendant Ro-○, Defendant Ro-○, 49, 789, 000 won for each of the said money, and each of the said money, from June 11, 2011 to April 17, 2011 to the day of full payment; and 5% interest per annum from April 20, 201 to April 17, 201 to the day of full payment; and 20% interest per annum from each of the following day to the day of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims against the defendant leap○○ and Maok○ are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of the lawsuit, the part arising between the Plaintiff and Defendant 1 ○○ and the part arising between the Plaintiff and Defendant 1 ○○, the Plaintiff and Defendant 1 / 10 are assessed against the Plaintiff, and each remainder is assessed against Defendant 1, 2, and 30.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The amount of money shall be paid at the rate of 20% per annum from the day of full payment to the day of full payment.

A. The Plaintiff, at around 193, deposited KRW 1 billion with the ○○ Cooperative under the ○○ Cooperative Federation’s control, but around 1994, employees, such as the head of the ○ Cooperative’s president, etc., operated illegal corporate bonds business by using the amount of KRW 40 billion deposited by customers and did not find the above deposits due to the case where more than 30 depositors suffered damage.

(2) Defendant 2, who knows that the Plaintiff was trying to recover his money, was sentenced to KRW 70 billion by means of this case’s economic head, Lee ○○○○ Prime Minister, Lee ○○○○○○ former Prosecutor, and senior public prosecutor’s head, and had the Plaintiff receive money from the Plaintiff on July 19, 200. (3) Defendant 2, who was in an imminent situation, had been sentenced to KRW 70 billion by means of this case’s imprisonment with prison labor for KRW 70 billion, and was sentenced to KRW 70 billion by means of fraud and KRW 40 billion. However, the Plaintiff had no capacity to receive money from Plaintiff 1 and KRW 40 billion from 00,000 to 0,000,000,000,000 won.

B. As to the acquisition and lease (1) of ○○○ and ○○’s real estate (1), Defendant 1’s wife of ○○○○○, and Defendant 2’s son○○○○○○○○○○, on February 7, 2002, Defendant 2’s ○○○○○○, on July 31, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as “○○○○○ apartment”), the registration of ownership transfer was completed in his name on 00, Songpa-gu 60, 70, 70, 100, 60, 70, 100, 60, 70, 100, 60, 100, 60, 700, 100, 60, 700, 100, 100, 60, 600, 206, 30,000, 16,000.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

① In collusion with the Plaintiff, the Defendants acquired the above KRW 7.57 billion from the Plaintiff. ② Defendant Auction○○ concluded each contract title trust agreement with Defendant Pap○○ and Ro○○○○, and provided purchase funds, and without knowing the above agreement, Defendant Auction○○ purchased ○○ Housing and ○○ apartment from Defendant ○○○○, in the name of each of the Defendant’s ○○○○○○○○○, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of Defendant ○○○○○○○, and purchased ○○○○○○○, in the name of Defendant ○○○○○, and purchased ○○○○○○○○○, in the name of Defendant ○○○○○○○, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the future of Defendant ○○○○○○○, by leasing ○○ and 016. Defendant Auction○ received KRW 348,789,000 in total leased money, and Defendant Auction○ was aware that said money was acquired by Defendant ○○○.

① As a joint tortfeasor, the Defendants are obligated to pay KRW 7.57 billion to the Plaintiff as damages individually. ② Defendant ○○○○○, Defendant ○○○○○, and Defendant ○○○○○○, acquired ownership of ○○ Housing and ○○ apartment pursuant to the proviso of Article 4(2) of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name, but they are obligated to return unjust enrichment to Defendant ○○○○○. The Plaintiff may exercise the right to return unjust enrichment on Defendant ○○○ and ○○○○○○, in order to compensate for damages equivalent to the above acquired amount. As such, the Plaintiff may exercise the right to return unjust enrichment on Defendant ○○○ and ○○○○○○○, the Plaintiff directly pays the amount equivalent to the market price of each real estate directly to the Plaintiff. ③ Defendant ○○○, a malicious beneficiary, who was paid from Defendant ○○ pursuant to Article 747(2) of the Civil Act, is obligated to return KRW 348,789,00.

B. Summary of the Defendants’ assertion (1) as to the Defendants’ joint tort

There is no participation in, or there is no conspiracy to commit, the act of defraudation by the defendant ○○ or the defendant ○○○.

(2) As to the duty to return Defendant Ma○○, ○○○○○○, ○○ Housing, and ○ apartment purchase fund

① Defendant ○○○○ purchased ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, using 40 million won as a claim for the return of the lease deposit against ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, and does not receive title trust from Defendant ○○○○○○○○. ② The ○○○○○○○○○○○○○ was a real estate purchased under the name of Defendant ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, by means of an effort from all of his family members, and used a loan of KRW 60 million from the relevant ○○○○○○○○○○○○, and did not receive title trust from Defendant ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, which was financed by the ○○○○○○○○○, its wife’s property and 180 million won, and did not receive title trust from Defendant 1○○○○○○○○, a loan of KRW 90 billion.

(3) As to the duty to return the amount equivalent to the lease deposit, No. 016, Defendant 1’s ○○○ and 016

Defendant ○○○○ merely collected funds from the surrounding persons for his own business and leased 016, but did not receive the lease deposit necessary for the lease from Defendant ○○○, and did not know at all whether Defendant ○○ was aware of the aforementioned deceptive act from the Plaintiff; 3. Determination;

A. Defendant 1’s liability for damages

According to the above facts of recognition, Defendant 1, as an illegal act under Article 750 of the Civil Act, is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages, since he/she deceivings the Plaintiff, and that he/she acquired KRW 7.577 billion from the Plaintiff.

B. Determination on the liability for damages by Defendant Ma○○ and Ma○○○ due to joint tort

The plaintiff alleged that since the defendants conspired in collusion with the plaintiff that received the above 7.57 billion won from the plaintiff, the defendant 00 million won and the 19.5 million won should also be liable for the same damages as the defendant 200,000,000 won. However, there is no evidence to support that the defendant 00 and 100,000 won were gathered or carried out by the defendant 20,000 won, and therefore, the above assertion by the plaintiff

C. Defendant ○○○○, ○○○○○○○, ○○○○○○○○, ○○ House, and ○○ apartment purchase price, and Defendant ○○○○○○○, and Defendant 1’s obligation to return the amount equivalent to the deposit for lease deposit (1) was acknowledged (A). Defendant ○○, as the case of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud), was examined by a judicial police officer around May 10, 2010 and stated as follows.

The phrase: The result of the fund tracking has been distributed to the head of the Tong in the name of the wife and the head of the Tong, but all of them are not aware that the suspect committed the crime.

The answer: approximately KRW 2 billion to KRW 3 billion is hot, which is known to the complainant." The phrase " shall be cut off from the complainants," and all of them shall be cut off to the wife.

The answer: He does not know that it is only KRW 2 billion to KRW 3 billion that he knows that he has lent to another place. The phrase “I am : there is a big difference between the money he has from the complainant and the money he has in a harsh relationship.”

The answer: ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, purchased approximately KRW 100 million by auction around 2001, and received a loan of KRW 100 million, around April through 5, 2001, ○○○○○○○○○○○, around 150 million, purchased in the name of KRW 160 million, and received a loan of KRW 160 million, and around 2009, ○○ apartment was purchased in the name of KRW 300 million, including the security deposit, and was purchased in the name of KRW ○○○○.” The text and anywhere used.

The answer: Ak-to-O Kafbook (30 square meters) No. 260,000,000 won per month on September 2005, which was 10,000,000 won, which was 14,500,000 won per month, and the interior and installation costs were 10,000,000 won, which was 10,000,000,000 won per month, which was introduced by the Kim ○-to-be in excess of the average of 25,00,000 won per month, and now the business was not well operated." The text and each of the above companies are essential to determine how to distribute shares.

The answer is as follows: although the head of ○○○ and the head of ○○ were divided into two parts, the head of ○○ and the head of ○○○ was the bad credit holder, and thus, the head of ○○○ and the head of ○○○ and the head of ○○○ and the head of ○○○ and the head of ○○○○ and the head of ○○○ and the head of ○○ and the head of ○○ and the head of ○○ and the head of ○○ and the head of ○○ and the head of ○○ and the head of ○○ and the head of ○○○ and the head of ○○ and the head of ○○○ and the head of ○○○ and the head of ○○○ and the head of ○○ and the head of ○○ and the head of ○○ and the head

C. Defendant ○○ did not have any other income except that worked in ○○ Distribution at the time of purchase of ○○ Cargo around 2005.

D. In 2006, some of the checks issued after around 2006, which could make it possible to inquire into financial transaction information from the Plaintiff’s money obtained by Defendant ○○○, which was deposited into Defendant ○○ and Defendant ○○○○ account as follows:

E. On January 10, 2002, Defendant 1 purchased ○○ apartment from ○○○○○○ on the basis of the price of KRW 90 million and received KRW 60 million from ○○○○ apartment as security on the same day. On April 10, 2009, Defendant 1 purchased ○○ apartment from ○○○○○○ apartment from ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ on the basis of its own as security, and received KRW 180 million from ○○○○○○ apartment on April 30, 2009 on the basis of its ownership transfer. Defendant 1 purchased ○○○ apartment at ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ on the basis of ○○○○○○○○ apartment on the basis of ○○○○○○○○○ apartment on the basis of her entire share transfer. Defendant 206, Oct. 22, 2004, 2005.

F) Defendant Ro-○, who is serving a prison term of nine years, became final and conclusive and is still serving in prison, has no particular property.

[Ground of Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 2, 3, 5, 6, Eul evidence 1 to 8 (including each number)

As a result of the response to the order to submit financial transaction information from June 27, 201 to the ○○ bank, the judgment on the whole purport of the pleadings (2) the obligation to return the purchase price of Defendant Pap○○○, ○○○○○○, ○○○○○○○, and ○ apartment purchase price.

According to the above facts, in order to conceal money that ○○○○○○○○○ acquired from the Plaintiff or to evade compulsory execution against himself, he shall enter into a contract title trust agreement with Defendant ○○○○ or ○○○○○○, who had no particular income source, other than Defendant 2, and purchase ○○○○○, on October 22, 2004, jointly purchased ○○○○, etc. from Defendant ○○○○○, on the ground of Defendant 2 as a party, and on July 12, 2005, he shall enter into a co-owned property transfer agreement with Defendant 2 on July 26, 2005, on which ○○○○○○○○ apartment was transferred all shares of ○○○○○○○○○○○○, who was not aware of the above agreement, and on the ground of Defendant ○○○○’s failure to obtain the ownership transfer registration from Defendant 2, 2005, the title truster completed the registration of ownership transfer.

Furthermore, as to the scope of unjust enrichment to be returned, according to the above facts, at the time of acquiring ○○○ apartment, Defendant ○○○○○ is obligated to pay 2,780,000 won (=6,780,000 won - 4,000 won) excluding the amount of the deposit for the return of the lease deposit with respect to the existing ○ apartment from Defendant ○○○○ at the time of acquiring ○○ apartment, and at the time of purchasing ○ Housing, Defendant ○○○○○ was obligated to pay 00,000 won (=90,000 won from KRW 6,00 to KRW 60,000,000) excluding the amount of the deposit borrowed from Defendant ○○○ apartment at the purchase price, and 12,000,000 won, excluding the amount of the deposit for the return of the lease deposit with respect to ○ apartment at each of the above ○○ apartment at KRW 1,000,000.

On the other hand, as to the defendants' assertion that ○○○ Housing, ○○○ House, and ○○ apartment was purchased as its own property and that it was not purchased after concluding a title trust agreement with Defendant ○○○○○○○ and ○○○○○○○○○○○○○, and that it was stated that Defendant ○○○ acquired each of the above real property under the name of Defendant ○○○○ or ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ by using the money acquired by Defendant ○ from the plaintiff in the course of criminal investigation into his own criminal case as seen above. Defendant ○○○ and ○○○○○○○○○○○ stated that each of the above real property was acquired under the name of Defendant ○○○ and ○○○○○○○○○○, regardless of whether part of the checks acquired by Defendant ○○○○○ was deposited directly in the accounts in the name of Defendant ○○ and ○○○○○○ at the time of acquisition of each of the above real property.

In addition, according to each of the evidence Nos. 1, 4, and 6, as to the Defendants’ conjunctive assertion that each of the above real estate was loaned to Defendant Pap○○○○○, Defendant Pap○○○○○○, and each of the loans to Defendant Pap○○○○○○○, and each of the above loans was set off against the Defendant’s obligation to return unjust enrichment with the above loans, it can be acknowledged that Defendant Pap○○○, and ○○○○○○, and ○○○○○○○, as a collateral, received a loan as security on each of the above Defendants’ assertion, but there is no evidence supporting that part of the loans were given to Defendant Pap○○○ and ○○○○○○○, on each of the above Defendants’ assertion, there is no reason to believe that the above defense by Defendant Pap○○ and ○○○ was equivalent to the obligation to return the amount equivalent to the deposit.

According to the above facts of recognition, it can be confirmed that Defendant ○○○ delivered the money obtained by Defendant ○○ from the Plaintiff to Defendant ○○○○, and Defendant ○○○ leased ○○ on January 17, 2006 with the said money, and paid KRW 270,00,000 as lease deposit, and KRW 78,789,00 as lease deposit, and KRW 78,789,000 as lease deposit, respectively. Defendant ○○ may be confirmed to have known that the said money was obtained by the Plaintiff or was gross negligence.

Article 747(2) of the Civil Act provides that if a beneficiary is unable to return his profit, a third party in bad faith who acquired the object of the benefit without compensation from the beneficiary is also liable to return unjust enrichment. In such a case, if the beneficiary cannot return the benefit, the beneficiary is also unable to do so, and the third party in bad faith includes not only the bad faith but also the case where the third party in bad faith is discovered by gross negligence. As seen earlier, Defendant 1, who is the beneficiary, is the beneficiary, and Defendant 2, who is the beneficiary, is liable to return the profit to the Plaintiff (=270,000,000 +78,789,000,000 +789,000,000) that was paid by Defendant 2, who is the beneficiary of bad faith, is obligated to return the profit to the Plaintiff.

Defendant ○○○ alleged to the effect that the rent deposit paid for the lease of ○○ and 016 was raised by raising funds from the surrounding persons for his/her business, and that Defendant ○○○○○ acquired money from the Plaintiff, even before he/she was arrested on May 10, 2010, Defendant ○○○○○ did not have any evidence to deem that Defendant ○○○○ had provided money from other persons for the lease deposit of 00 billion to 00 billion won, and Defendant ○○○○ stated that Defendant ○○ was aware of the amount of KRW 2 billion out of the money he/she acquired from the Plaintiff in the course of investigating the criminal case against himself/herself, and that Defendant ○○○ and Defendant ○○○○○○○ was a father-do, and that Defendant ○○○○ and Defendant ○○○○ had the shares of each company run by Defendant ○○○○, and that it was also work at each company, etc., the allegation made by the above Defendant ○○○○○ cannot be accepted.

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, according to the Plaintiff’s claim against the Plaintiff, Defendant ○○○ shall pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from April 20, 2011 to the day following the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case as damages to the Plaintiff, as well as damages for delay calculated at the rate of 7,579,50,000 per annum from April 20, 201 to the day of full payment. Of Defendant ○○○ and each of the above money, Defendant ○○ shall be 27,80,000 won from June 11, 2011 to the day following the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case; Defendant ○○○○ shall be liable at the rate of 150,000,000 per annum from the day following the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case to the day of full payment; Defendant ○○○ shall be paid at the rate of 20,789,000 won per annum from the day following the judgment of this case;

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant Maok-○ is justified, and the claim against the defendant Maok-○ and Maok-○ is accepted within the scope of the above recognition. The remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Lee fixed-term

Judges Park Byung-chul

The Ministry of Health and Welfare, the Ministry of Health and Welfare, the Ministry of Health and Welfare, the Ministry of Health and Welfare, the Ministry of Health and Welfare, the Ministry of Health and Welfare, the Ministry of Health and Welfare, the Ministry of Health and Welfare, the Ministry of Health and Welfare, and the Ministry