부당이득금
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. On April 13, 2015, the Plaintiff issued to the Defendant a check of KRW 65 million at par value, a half of the bid bond for real estate (hereinafter “instant real estate”) such as the land subject to the Jung-gu District Court C voluntarily auction case, to the Defendant.
The Defendant received 65 million won as bid deposit from Nonparty E and received 65 million won from the Plaintiff, and submitted as a deposit for the purchase of the instant real estate, and the Plaintiff, Defendant, and E filed an application for the purchase of the instant real estate with the above auction procedure, and received a decision to permit the sale from the said court.
The Plaintiff, Defendant, and E failed to pay any balance of the proceeds from the sale by the deadline for the payment of the balance of the proceeds from the sale under the above auction procedure, and there was a decision to permit the sale
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute between the parties, Gap evidence 3, Gap evidence 6 through Gap evidence 8, Eul evidence 3, the purport of whole pleadings
2. Determination as to the cause of action
A. The Plaintiff asserts that the determination on the cancellation of the contract is as follows.
If the defendant invests KRW 65 million to the plaintiff, he sold or developed the above real estate at a successful bid, and distributed half of the investment profits to the plaintiff and the defendant.
However, the defendant did not have the ability to procure bid bonds or balance to the extent that it would be 65 million won invested by the non-party E, and even if it sells or develops the real estate acquired through future auction, such as hiding the fact that the plaintiff donated part of the real estate in this case to E, it did not have the intent or ability to distribute half of the proceeds therefrom.
Therefore, the Plaintiff’s expression of intent to make an investment to the Defendant is revoked by the delivery of a duplicate of the complaint of this case and sought the return of the said investment amount to the Defendant.
A. A., A., A.