beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.08.13 2014가단78841

정산금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On April 2, 2003, the registration of ownership transfer (No. 32088 of the receipt on April 3, 2003) was completed in the future of the defendant on April 3, 2003 with respect to the land of this case, which was owned by C (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. The sales amount paid to C in relation to the above trading is KRW 392,50,000.

C. The instant land was expropriated in the Korea National Housing Corporation in around 2009, and the Defendant received KRW 545,506,660 from the Defendant around May of the same year.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 3, 7 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the land of this case was purchased in the name of the Defendant by investing shares of 1/3 in the Plaintiff, Defendant, and E, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 1350 million to the Defendant via E, which is the sum of the purchase price and other expenses.

Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the amount equivalent to 1/3 of the compensation for expropriation of the land of this case with the settlement of accounts, so the defendant shall seek payment of KRW 80 million, which is a part of the compensation.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that the instant land was jointly purchased with the shares of Defendant 1/3 and E 2/3, and the Defendant completed all of the settlement of accounts according to the aforementioned share ratio between E and E.

3. It is insufficient to recognize that the witness E’s testimony consistent with the Plaintiff’s assertion was not reliable, and that the Plaintiff entered into a joint investment agreement with the Defendant on the instant land, even if all other evidence submitted by the Plaintiff were gathered.

(M) In addition, there is no evidence between the Plaintiff and the Defendant that the Plaintiff paid the amount of direct investment to the Defendant, as otherwise alleged by the Plaintiff, and there is no document stating that the Plaintiff paid the amount of direct investment to the Defendant, and that “23,00,000 won was sent,” the statement of settlement and receipt (e.g., “6.6% of the E equity” in Section 2) of the Defendant’s preparation.