beta
(영문) 수원지방법원 안산지원 2018.08.30 2018가합6249

부당이득금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is the mother of the defendant.

On March 3, 2016 and April 6, 2016, the Plaintiff donated a total of KRW 556,000,000 to the Defendant twice (hereinafter “instant donation”).

B. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant did not faithfully support the Plaintiff, and expressed his/her intent to rescind the instant gift contract by serving a duplicate of the complaint of this case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion constitutes a gift with a burden on the condition that the Defendant faithfully supports the Plaintiff.

However, since the defendant did not fulfill its conditions, the plaintiff cancelled the donation contract of this case by the delivery of the duplicate of the complaint of this case, and claimed the return of the above KRW 56,00,000 to the defendant by restitution.

B. Determination 1) Whether or not there is a separate obligation of the other party in relation to the gift or whether or not the other party has agreed to assume a separate obligation in relation to the gift constitutes a matter of fact-finding, which constitutes a final and conclusive determination as to what legal effect between the parties, and whether or not it was made by explicitly or implicitly indicating it through speech or behavior, etc., and thus, the party who asserts the existence thereof must prove it in accordance with the aforementioned legal doctrine (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da5878, May 27, 2010).

The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff was engaged in the gift of this case under the condition that the Plaintiff performed the obligation to support, and there is no other evidence to recognize it.

On the other hand, according to the purport of the entire pleadings, it may be acknowledged that the Plaintiff stated to the Defendant at the time of the instant donation that “it is not a match, but a condition to be well attached to B in the future.”