beta
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2018.06.22 2017나212072

부당이득금

Text

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.

Reasons

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the facts in the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in Paragraph 1 of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the following reasons: “The Plaintiff, B, from the mid of the 1990s to the beginning of the 2010s, entered into a mutual relationship with the Defendant with the Defendant. However, on November 21, 2001, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer based on the purchase and sale of the instant land as of October 14, 2001.” Thus, this part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as stated in Paragraph 1 of the same Article.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff trusted the instant land in title to the Defendant.

However, the defendant set up a mortgage on the land of this case at his discretion, and the land of this case was sold to E during the voluntary auction procedure after the execution of the mortgage, and the transfer registration was completed.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 182,750,000, which is the purchase price of the instant land in the above auction procedure, as compensation for damages arising from unjust enrichment return or tort, and the damages for delay.

B. The Plaintiff is a donation to the Defendant of the instant land in return for monetary support and for the maintenance of the relationship with the Defendant.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant under the premise of title trust is without merit.

3. Determination

A. Since a person registered as an owner of a real estate is presumed to have acquired ownership through legitimate procedures and causes, the fact that such registration was based on a title trust has the burden of proving that it was based on the title trust (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Da82913, Jun. 23, 2015). Whether a title trust was made with respect to a certain land has been registered in the future by the registered titleholder, the circumstances in which the registration was made, the size and management status of the land, the receipt and disbursement relation of the land, the payment relation of taxes and public charges, the relationship between the tax and public charges, and the certificate of