부당이득금
1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.
Purport of claim and appeal
1.
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows: the court's "this court" among the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance is dismissed as "court of the court of first instance"; and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the part of the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance; therefore, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the
2. Part VI of the decision of the court of first instance shall be subject to the following measures: (a) Parts VI through VII of the decision of the court of first instance shall be as follows:
“The Defendant, upon the request of the Plaintiff Company to Defendant C, lent the name of Defendant C, which is the wife of Defendant C, and used by the Daecheon-si Integrated Construction Corporation (hereinafter “instant apartment”).
B. Upon the purchase of the above apartment units, at least 200 million won of the down payment and intermediate payment of the above apartment units were paid by D, and since the above sales business incurred damage to D due to the remainder of the default, the Plaintiff Company was obligated to compensate for the damage. Since Defendant C acquired the above claim against the Plaintiff Company, Defendant C made a plea that the above damage claim is automatic claim and offset the Plaintiff Company’s damage claim against Defendant C by the passive claim.
However, the evidence submitted by the Defendants alone is insufficient to recognize that the apartment of this case was actually owned by the Plaintiff Company, and that D only lent the name of the Plaintiff Company, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this.
Even if it is assumed that D had lent its name to the Plaintiff Company as alleged by the Defendants, thereby acquiring the damage claim against the Plaintiff Company, and that D transferred the above claim to Defendant C, the Plaintiff’s damage claim against Defendant C is a claim arising from the intentional tort committed by Defendant C, and the Defendant C cannot set off its claim with the passive claim pursuant to Article 496 of the Civil Act. Therefore, the aforementioned defense by the Defendants is reasonable even in this respect.