손해배상(기)
1. The defendant shall pay 237,200,000 won to the plaintiff and 15% per annum from July 8, 2017 to the day of complete payment.
1. Basic facts
A. The plaintiff is the defendant's birth.
B. On October 22, 1979, the Plaintiff and the Defendant C completed the registration of ownership transfer on the land of Sacheon-si, Sacheon-si.
C. C divided the above land into E, F, G, and H land (hereinafter referred to as “bundine”) in the time of capture, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Defendant with respect to G and H land around April 30, 1992.
Gyeonggi-do accepted H land around November 8, 2007, and the defendant received compensation of KRW 60 million.
The defendant paid 10 million won out of the above compensation to the plaintiff.
E. On March 16, 2017, the Defendant sold G land to I for KRW 434,400,000 and received the purchase price and completed the registration of ownership transfer on June 2, 2017.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 9, purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. The Plaintiff C and the Defendant paid 1/2 shares in G and H land, and the Defendant returned to the Republic of Korea at the time, and thus, the Plaintiff trusted 1/2 shares in each of the above land under the name of the Defendant.
However, the Defendant did not pay to the Plaintiff KRW 20 million out of KRW 1/2 of H land expropriation compensation of KRW 30 million and KRW 217,200,000,000 of the sale price of G land. Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to return the sum of KRW 237,200,000 to the Plaintiff with unjust enrichment and pay damages for delay.
B. As to Defendant G and H land, the Plaintiff renounced its ownership, and the Defendant received the transfer of ownership on condition that her mother gathers, and managed it as a farmer, the Plaintiff did not title trust 1/2 shares to the Defendant.
3. We examine whether the Plaintiff first held title trust with the Defendant as to whether each one-half of the shares of G and H land was nominal.
The evidence mentioned above is based on the evidence, Gap evidence No. 10, and Eul's testimony and the whole purport of oral proceedings.