부당이득반환
The plaintiff's appeal and the second preliminary claim added in the trial are all dismissed.
2. After an appeal is filed.
1. Basic facts
A. On July 200, the Plaintiff living in a de facto marital relationship with C from around July 200, and resolved a de facto marital relationship on October 2018, and the Defendant was born in 1986 and was a father between C and H.
B. On August 26, 2002, the Plaintiff purchased D Apartment E (hereinafter “instant apartment”) from G to KRW 93 million. On February 1, 2012, the Plaintiff completed the registration of the transfer of ownership on December 26, 2011 (the transaction price of KRW 130 million) in the Defendant’s name.
On the other hand, on August 26, 2002, the Plaintiff created the right to collateral security (hereinafter “instant collateral security”) with respect to the instant apartment as well as KRW 48 million with respect to the claim amount and KRW 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000
(c)
On April 27, 2012, the Defendant set up a mortgage on the instant apartment with the maximum claim amount of KRW 36 million and the nearby mortgagee Co., Ltd., Ltd. on October 19, 2012. On the same day, the Defendant filed a lawsuit on October 19, 2012, and on October 2, 2012, the ownership of the instant apartment due to purchase and sale (the transaction price of KRW 135 million) was terminated before the transfer, etc.
[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 13, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff purchased and owned the instant apartment and entered into a title trust agreement with the Defendant, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the future of the Defendant.
On the other hand, the Plaintiff terminated the above title trust agreement by serving a document prepared on September 25, 2019, and thus, the Defendant is obliged to re-transfer the ownership of the instant apartment again to the Plaintiff.
Therefore, as long as the Defendant has already disposed of the apartment of this case, it is impossible to recover the ownership, the Defendant should dispose of the apartment of this case and return the amount equivalent to the purchase price received as unjust gains.
2) Preliminaryly, the Defendant did the instant apartment.