부당이득금반환 청구
1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.
2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. On October 1, 2010, the Plaintiff asserted that: (a) purchased from the Defendant the Gangwon-do Hongcheon-gun C, and D’s respective sites (a total area of 5,595 square meters; hereinafter “C’ and D’s respective sites”) and the building on land (a total area of 5,595 square meters) in KRW 200 million; and (b) fully pays the purchase price to the Defendant; and (c) completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Plaintiff with respect to each of the above sites and
However, while the building on the ground of D was scheduled to be removed immediately, and the registration of ownership transfer was not completed for the Plaintiff, the loan was rejected on the ground that the Plaintiff attempted to obtain a loan from the bank as security by means of C and D, and that the Defendant’s superficies was established on the building on the ground of D and D.
Accordingly, around December 20, 2012, the Plaintiff newly prepared a sales contract for the above livestock shed building with Defendant around December 20, 2012 in order to transfer the registration of ownership transfer concerning the above livestock shed building to the Plaintiff, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of Plaintiff on December 20, 2012.
The Plaintiff paid KRW 5 million to the Defendant on December 24, 2012 based on the sales contract dated December 20, 2012, based on the said sales contract as of December 20, 2012. However, the said sales contract was made only for the registration of ownership transfer of a stable building on the ground of D site. As such, the sales contract as of December 20, 2012 was null and void as it was based on a false agreement with the Defendant, and the amount of KRW 5 million paid to the Defendant constitutes unjust enrichment, and the Defendant is obligated to return KRW 5 million to the Plaintiff.
2. Determination
A. According to the evidence No. 6, the fact that the Plaintiff paid KRW 5 million to the Defendant on December 24, 2012 is recognized.
B. However, there is no evidence to deem that the Plaintiff paid the above KRW 5 million to the Defendant on the basis of the sales contract dated December 20, 2012, and rather, according to the purport of the entire pleadings, according to the sales contract concluded on December 20, 2012, the sales price of KRW 20 million is KRW 10 million, and the down payment is KRW 10 million at the time of the contract.