부당이득금
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except where the following is added after the last day of the judgment of the first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
5. The Plaintiff, at the Defendant’s request, paid the property tax on each of the above real estate until July 2009. This re-claimed that the statute of limitations has been interrupted since the Defendant, the title trustee, indicated that the existence of the title trust agreement and the right of the title truster B exists, constitutes a ground for suspending the statute of limitations.
According to the order of the court of the trial to submit tax information to the head of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office, and the result of the order of the defendant to submit financial transaction information to the National Bank Co., Ltd. as of December 2, 2016, although it is recognized that B or his/her dependent paid property tax on each of the above real estate four times between October 1, 2007 and July 31, 2009, the defendant's request for the payment of property tax is an act on the premise that B is the actual owner of the above real estate, and it can be seen that the defendant's request for the payment of property tax is implicitly included in B's act on the premise that B is the actual owner of the above real estate, and it is difficult to view that the defendant, contrary to the premise of the above request for the payment of property tax and the fact that the defendant, contrary to the premise of the above request for the payment of property tax, knewly included in the monetary obligation to return the bid price to B as unjust enrichment. Thus, the plaintiff's second claim of the above shall not be accepted.
6. The Plaintiff’s decision on the abuse of rights against the principle of good faith is that the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the Defendant.