소유권이전등기
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
1. The court's explanation of this case is the same as the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing this case by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
[Plaintiff asserts that the statute of limitations has been interrupted due to the Defendant’s approval of the obligation to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the purchase price of real estate in this case at the trial. The ground for interruption of the statute of limitations is established by expressing that the obligor, who is the party subject to the interruption of the statute of limitations, is aware of the existence of the right to the person who is expected to lose the right upon the completion of the statute of limitations. The method of indication does not require any form, and it is possible in an implied and implied manner without necessarily requiring any express indication. However, the implied approval indication should be made in such a way that the obligor can make the other party to the indication, on the premise that the obligor is aware of the existence and amount of the obligation, with the knowledge of the existence and amount of the obligation, be presumed to have been able to be inferred by the obligor through such indication (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da5959, Feb. 17, 2005). In light of the above legal doctrine, even if the Defendant had the Plaintiff receive rent from the Plaintiff, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff’s right to claim for return of unjust enrichment.
2. The decision of the first instance court is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is without merit.