beta
(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.07.13 2016나70345

부당이득금반환

Text

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.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 7, 2006, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant’s agent C to purchase the right to sell the instant apartment (hereinafter “instant apartment”) and around 2008, the Plaintiff paid the sales price for the instant apartment to the Lee Jae-si, a construction company for the instant apartment (hereinafter “the instant apartment”).

B. On July 22, 2008, the Defendant returned KRW 12,709,442 of the down payment that the Defendant paid from the development of the new industry, and deposited KRW 12,700,400 on the same day, and remitted KRW 10,700,400 among them to the bank account of the above C, and paid KRW 2,00,000,000 to the above C.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 4, Eul evidence 1 (including paper numbers), and the inquiry and reply of the court of first instance to the development of the sub-industry, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff purchased the right to sell the apartment of this case from the defendant, and paid the sale price in full to the development of the new branch industry, which is the seller, the defendant is obligated to pay the down payment returned from the development of the new branch industry to the plaintiff.

B. The Defendant’s assertion is the actual party to the instant contract, and the Defendant only lent only the name to the above C, and the Defendant is not obliged to pay the down payment returned from the development of the instant land industry, as it paid the down payment returned to the above C in full.

3. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the aforementioned facts, the actual party which entered into the instant contract with the Plaintiff is not the Defendant, but the above C, and the Plaintiff’s above assertion on a different premise is without merit.

1. C is returned by the court of first instance from the development of the new industry.