logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.04.05 2015가단5388144
부당이득금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

Reasons

Basic Facts

A. C’s ASEAN, upon the consent of C on July 4, 2007, obtained a loan of KRW 97,00,000 from the Hansan-dong Community Credit Cooperatives (hereinafter “the instant real estate”), and created a right to collateral security (hereinafter “the first right to collateral security”) with respect to the Bupyeong-gu Incheon Bupyeong-gu 1,503 (hereinafter “the instant real estate”), which is the owner of C, set up a right to collateral security (hereinafter “the first right to collateral security”).

B. D paid money to wife F (around May 201, 201) for the purpose of paying the principal and interest of the loan. However, F arbitrarily used the said money and did not pay the principal and interest of the loan to Busan-dong community credit cooperatives.

Accordingly, on May 19, 2010, upon the application of the Korea Development Bank of Busan and the Korea Development Bank, a decision to voluntarily commence the auction of the instant real estate was rendered, and the instant real estate was sold on the date of sale on October 20, 2010.

C. On November 2, 2010, prior to the payment of the purchase price, F borrowed money from the Defendants, and repaid the principal and interest of the loan to Samsan-dong community credit cooperatives, and cancelled the registration of establishment of the first place of establishment on the same day.

On November 2, 2010, F created the 2nd mortgage (hereinafter referred to as the “2nd mortgage”) which is the mortgagee A, C, and the 90,000,000 won with respect to the instant real estate (with respect to the instant real estate changed to KRW 135,00) and the 45,00,000 won with respect to Defendant B, the debtor C, the maximum debt amount, and the 45,00,000 won (after the change to KRW 67,50,00) with respect to the said real estate (hereinafter referred to as “the 2nd mortgage”).

However, F entered into a loan agreement for consumption under the name of C and a second mortgage contract with the Defendants respectively by forging the power of attorney, etc. in the name of C without obtaining authorization from C, or setting a third party.

(Loan for Consumption is not currently kept). (d)

After that, F in turn means 160,000,000 won from the Plaintiff on February 17, 201.

arrow