이익금 반환
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. The reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, with the exception of adding Gap evidence No. 11 and witness F testimony, the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance as to this case is as stated in the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of Gap evidence No. 11 and witness testimony submitted by the plaintiff in the court of first instance, which are insufficient to recognize the defendant's deception, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure
2. In a case where several co-owners jointly purchase real estate, the legal relationship between the co-owners may be merely a co-owner as a co-ownership relationship, and it may be purchased from a Dong company with several members. In a case where the co-owners of real estate cooperate with one another to achieve a "joint purpose" in order to obtain a profit from resale, and it is not recognized that there was "the purpose of the joint business management" beyond this, the legal relationship among them is merely a co-ownership relationship, and it cannot be deemed that there is a partnership relationship under the Civil Act.
If the purpose of a joint purchase is to acquire marginal profits from resale, it is at least to have the land purchased by a company for a joint project, not by sharing the land among the joint buyers, but by the company’s property, and to distribute profits after disposing of the entire account based on the intention of all the joint buyers, there must be an express or implied agreement with the intention of all the joint buyers. On the contrary, if the purpose of a joint purchase is to enable each purchaser to acquire profits by disposing of his/her own right of share based on the sharing of the land, it cannot be deemed to have been purchased from the company.
(Supreme Court Decision 2010Da39918 Decided August 30, 2012). According to the respective descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the defendant is not more than 3,305 square meters of Gangwon-gun, Gangwon-do, Seoul-do, and land No. 3,305 square meters prior to partition owned by E around December 2003.