부당이득금
1. All appeals filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) against the instant principal lawsuit and counterclaim are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be the principal lawsuit.
1. The reasoning of this court’s explanation is as follows, except for the second B(b) of the judgment of the court of first instance (from the sixth to the fifth to the fifth to the fifth to all below of the judgment of the court of first instance) as follows, and therefore, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Parts to be dried;
B. On November 8, 2003, the Defendant asserted that the agreement of this case was effective to the Plaintiff pursuant to the proviso of Article 115 of the Civil Act since B knew that the agreement of this case was made as the Plaintiff’s agent, although B did not indicate that it was for the Plaintiff at the time, the Defendant knew that it was for the Plaintiff, and therefore, the agreement of this case was effective to the Plaintiff pursuant to the proviso of Article 115 of the Civil Act.
In full view of the purport of each testimony made by the witness K and witness B of the first instance trial, at the time of the agreement of this case, the defendant was aware that the owner of the land of this case was not B but the plaintiff; B did not have any document to prove that the right of representation was granted by the plaintiff at the time of the agreement of this case; and K, on behalf of the defendant representative director, knew that the plaintiff was being treated at the hospital after the proof of alcohol existence at the time of the agreement of this case, did not confirm whether B had legitimate power of representation; at the time, the plaintiff used the land of this case; although the plaintiff was using the land of this case, Eul did not notify the plaintiff of the fact of the agreement of this case; and 3 million won out of the three million won received by the defendant, the defendant used the land of this case as the marriage expense for his child; and the remaining two million won can be recognized as being individually consumed.
In addition, the defendant is expected to continue to use the mine of this case for the next 30 years, and the defendant paid 3 million won and decided to lease the road of this case for 30 years.