부당이득금반환
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The Plaintiff’s assertion, the Defendant, and the J, etc. set up a right to collateral security against the said joint investors, including the Plaintiff, on the real estate owned by E, in order to jointly invest the loan amount of KRW 1.1 billion and secure it.
Since then, the auction procedure for the above secured real estate was conducted. The plaintiff filed a report on the right with the amount of investment of KRW 173.5 million, while the amount of investment was KRW 190 million, and the defendant and J filed a report on the right of KRW 370 million and KRW 186.5 million as principal, even though the amount of investment was KRW 320 million and KRW 160 million, respectively.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff suffered losses by receiving a dividend of less than the investment share ratio of KRW 9,766,95, and the Defendant and the J have the obligation to pay damages for delay from the date of distribution of the auction procedure. The Defendant and the J have the obligation to pay damages for delay from the date of distribution of the auction procedure, which corresponds to the ratio of the Defendant’s unjust enrichment among the Plaintiff’s damages to the Plaintiff (=9,76,95 won x 46,33,060 won x 46,333,060 won / (46,33,060 won 22,786,462)) and damages for delay from the date of distribution of the auction procedure.
2. Unlike the statement of the fact-finding certificate (No. 9) or the certificate of confirmation of investment loans (No. 10) written by the representative K of the judgment C, it is insufficient to recognize that the amount invested by each investor, including the Plaintiff, including the Defendant, and the J, and the share ratio corresponding thereto are the same as the Plaintiff’s assertion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.
3. As such, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed due to the ground for rejection, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.