beta
Text
1.The judgment of the first instance, including the claims extended in the trial, shall be modified as follows:
The defendant, the plaintiff 1.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On April 26, 2004, the Defendant purchased 720,000,000 square meters of H 6,612 square meters of forests and fields (hereinafter “instant land”) from the I and J on April 26, 2004, and agreed to pay 72,00,000 won of the contract amounting to KRW 648,00,000 on May 25, 2004.
B. On May 19, 2004, the Defendant issued and delivered the loan certificate (No. 2, hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”) stating “one hundred million won per day: the above amount is regularly borrowed.”
C. On April 23, 2004, the post office account in the name of the defendant was deposited KRW 5,000,000 in the name of the plaintiff, May 20, 2004, and KRW 95,00,000 in the name of E on May 21, 2004.
The defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on February 24, 2005 with respect to the land of this case based on the above sale.
E. On July 7, 2012, Plaintiff A’s spouse, Plaintiff B, and C jointly inherited the deceased E’s property as E’s child (hereinafter “the deceased”).
[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 6 (including numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Judgment as to the main claim
A. On May 19, 2004, the Plaintiffs lent KRW 100,000,000 to the Defendant on May 19, 2004. 2) Defendant Deceased paid KRW 100,00,000 to the Defendant around May 19, 2004, not the loan, but the investment amount for the instant land.
In other words, the defendant only lent the name of the defendant to the business that purchases and resells the land of K, G, L, F, and the land of this case on the deceased's account, and distributes the profits from deducting taxes and public charges from the resale price at the rate of investment.
B. 1) As long as the authenticity of a disposal document is recognized, the court shall recognize the existence and content of the declaration of intent in accordance with the content of the document, unless there is any clear and acceptable reflective evidence that could deny the content of the statement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 88Meu2169, Jun. 26, 1990). 2) The Defendant’s 100,000 from the deceased.