부당이득금반환
1. The plaintiff's respective claims against the defendants are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff and the Defendants are South Korea-China relationship.
B. On September 14, 1993, the Korea National Housing Corporation completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of sale on July 14, 1989 with respect to the Daejeon Jung-gu D (Seoul Seo-gu), 102 Dong 404 (hereinafter “instant real estate”). Defendant B completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of sale on July 14, 1989, and Defendant B completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage (7 million maximum debt amount) with respect to the instant real estate in the future of the Korea Housing Bank on the same day.
C. Defendant B completed the registration of ownership transfer for reasons of sale on December 10, 1993 with respect to the instant real estate to F on January 8, 1994.
[Ground of recognition] No. 1, entry of Gap evidence and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The Plaintiff asserted that he leased and resided the instant real estate from the Korea National Housing Corporation in 1984, and around May 4, 1986, the Plaintiff had Defendant B reside in the instant real estate.
Since then, the Plaintiff entered into a title trust agreement with Defendant B in 1989, and purchased the instant real estate from the Korea National Housing Corporation under the name of Defendant B, and Defendant C jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation to return unjust enrichment against the Plaintiff following the Defendant B’s arbitrary disposal of the instant real estate.
However, since Defendant B sold the instant real estate to F at will, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 150 million equivalent to the current market price of the instant real estate, as the return of unjust enrichment.
3. Since it is presumed that a person registered as an owner of the judgment real estate acquired ownership through due process and cause, the fact that the registration was based on the title trust has the burden of proof to the claimant.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da90883, Apr. 24, 2008). No evidence exists to deem that the Plaintiff was responsible for the sale price of the instant real estate, and the Plaintiff is the Plaintiff.