부당이득금
The defendant's KRW 15,040,000 to the plaintiff and its 5% per annum from April 14, 2016 to November 4, 2020.
1. The following facts can be acknowledged in light of the contents of evidence Nos. 1 to 6 of fact-finding.
The plaintiff is a child of C, and the defendant is a partner of C.
B. C’s death on November 9, 2006, the Plaintiff, D’s children, and E inherited one-third of the property of C.
C. However, on January 15, 2007, with respect to two vehicles owned by C (F, G, hereinafter “instant vehicle”), the registration of transfer of ownership was completed on January 15, 2007 by inheritance in the future of the Plaintiff.
In addition, on January 12, 2007, the Defendant sold the instant vehicle to H with the purchase price of KRW 16 million, and completed the ownership transfer registration to H on January 15, 2007.
On the other hand, on June 23, 2009, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff lent KRW 20 million to the Plaintiff, and filed a lawsuit claiming KRW 19,978,016 for the remainder of the loan that was not repaid to the Plaintiff (Seoul District Court Decision 2014Gaso8940), and received a favorable judgment on February 25, 2015 (hereinafter “related judgment”).
E. Furthermore, based on the relevant judgment, the Defendant filed an application for a compulsory auction (Seoul District Court Seogsan Branch Branch of the Daejeon District Court) with respect to the land of this case (hereinafter “instant land”) which is owned by the Plaintiff. In the said auction procedure, the market price of the instant land was KRW 15 million around April 14, 2015, and K was around KRW 12 million on April 14, 2016.
F. However, the Plaintiff filed a subsequent appeal against the relevant judgment ( Daejeon District Court 2019Na1532), and the Defendant was sentenced to a judgment against the Defendant on December 3, 2019, and the said judgment against the Plaintiff became final and conclusive around that time.
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff’s claim related to the instant land was based on the relevant judgment against the Plaintiff, and the land of this case was assessed at KRW 15 million based on the market price, and the Plaintiff was lost its ownership. On the other hand, the Defendant gains profit from receiving dividends of KRW 12 million in the above auction procedure, and thus, the Defendant unjust enrichment against the Plaintiff.