부당이득금
1. The plaintiff's appeal and the claim added in the trial are all dismissed.
2. The costs of the lawsuit after the appeal are filed.
1. Basic facts
A. The defendant is the birth of the plaintiff's wife C, D (ma), C (ma), E (ma), F (ma) and the defendant (ma) are siblingss of the plaintiff's wife C.
B. The change of ownership 1) Seoul Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 63 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).
(2) On October 8, 1981, the registration of ownership transfer under the Plaintiff’s name was made on October 8, 1981, and the above land’s land’s mentmen, mentmen, bricks, mentbros, mentmen, mentmen, and strings of the above land (a total of 56.9 square meters in total, 13.78 square meters in total, 35.10 square meters in underground rooms; hereinafter “the instant building”). The instant
On October 5, 1983, the registration of initial ownership in the Plaintiff’s name was completed. On July 4, 1991, the registration of initial ownership was completed on the ground of sale as of June 16, 1991. 2) The registration of initial ownership was completed on July 30, 2003 as of the building in this case’s underground H and the first floor I. Among them, the registration of initial ownership transfer was completed on the ground of sale as of January 30, 2004 before the JJ as of February 26, 2004; the registration of initial ownership transfer was completed on the ground of sale as of June 29, 2006; the registration of initial ownership transfer was completed on the ground of sale as of July 30, 205 in L future.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, 16, 17 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion made a title trust agreement with the Defendant, his wife, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant real estate, to the Defendant, who had been holding the instant real estate, to purchase approximately 116 square meters in Seoul Dongdaemun-gu NN, Seoul, and to avoid heavy taxation on two or more houses per household.
However, after dividing the instant building without the Plaintiff’s consent or consent, the Defendant sold Hho Lake to K and L for KRW 127,00,000 at the market price of KRW 65,00,00,000, respectively, and consumed all the purchase price.
Therefore, the defendant is a return of unjust enrichment.