beta
Text
1. The part of the conjunctive claim in the instant lawsuit is dismissed.
2. The plaintiff's main claim is dismissed.
3...
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On October 28, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against B with the Seoul Central District Court No. 2014Garo5105797, and was sentenced by the above court to the effect that “B shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 17,715,713 and the amount of KRW 17,715,673, whichever is applicable, 14% per annum from June 12, 2012 to October 23, 2014, and the amount of KRW 20% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment (hereinafter “instant claim for compensation”). The above judgment was finalized on November 29, 2014.
B. As of July 22, 2016, the amount of the claim for reimbursement as of July 22, 2016 is the total of KRW 27,938,574.
C. The Defendant, who is his father, completed the registration of transfer of ownership on January 12, 2015 due to sale and purchase of Pyeongtaek-si apartment 102 Dong 304 on December 4, 2014, and completed the registration of transfer of ownership on March 17, 2015 with respect to Pyeongtaek-si 101 on the ground of sale and purchase as of February 24, 2015.
(hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant real estates” is added to the above real estates . [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, entry in Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 5, and purport of the whole pleadings.
2. Summary of the parties' arguments
A. Plaintiff 1) The Defendant donated KRW 56,080,000 of the purchase price of each of the instant real estate to the Defendant under the insolvency of Plaintiff B, who is liable for reimbursement to the Plaintiff, and had the Defendant purchase each of the instant real estate. The said contract should be revoked within the limit of KRW 27,938,574, which is the Plaintiff’s claim amount due to a fraudulent act detrimental to the obligee, and the Defendant paid the purchase price to the Plaintiff with restitution following the revocation of the fraudulent act. 2) The Defendant paid the purchase price in the process of completing the registration of ownership transfer with respect to each of the instant real estate. The title truster and the title trustee who lent the purchase price and the title trustee who lent the purchase price are null and void. Accordingly, the Defendant’s unjust enrichment shall be unjust enrichment.