2016 Doz. 109688

Ansan ○

Before Kim

April 12, 2018

May 17, 2018

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 269,990,203 won with 5% interest per annum from April 11, 2014 to May 17, 2018, and 15% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Three-minutes of litigation costs are assessed against the Defendant, and the remainder is assessed against the Plaintiff, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The Defendant’s claim as to KRW 420,000,000 and its claim as to the Plaintiff from April 11, 2014.

The rate of 5% per annum until the service date of a light application (as of March 6, 2018) and the rate from the next day to the day of complete payment.

15% of the 15% interest shall be paid.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 20, 201, yellow knives had completed the registration of ownership transfer for each land listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “each land of this case”) to the Defendant on October 20, 201, on the ground of sale on October 19, 201.

B. On April 11, 2014, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to each of the instant land to Kim △△△△△ on the ground of sale and purchase as of April 7, 201. The Plaintiff transferred each of the instant land to the Defendant on December 7, 201, under the mutual agreement between the Defendant and the Defendant, and under the two agreements, the Defendant transferred each of the instant land to the Defendant. The Defendant has no right to sell and purchase each of the instant land, and all of the rights to purchase and sell are the Plaintiff. The Defendant drafted a real estate sale statement (hereinafter referred to as “instant sheet”) stating that only the transfer of ownership was made, and that there was no investment in money.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1, 2, and 21 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. The primary assertion (1) that the Plaintiff purchased steknum from steknum and held title trust with the Defendant “three another party title trust” method. The Defendant did not dispose of each of the instant land without the Plaintiff’s consent, or is obligated to pay the purchase price to the Plaintiff even after disposing of each of the instant land, based on the implied delegation agreement that transfers the instant title trust agreement or each of the instant land to the Plaintiff. Nevertheless, the Defendant committed a tort selling each of the instant land to △△△△△△△ without the Plaintiff’s consent, in violation of such title trust agreement or delegation agreement. (2) The Defendant disposed of each of the instant land, thereby making it impossible for the Plaintiff, the title truster, to exercise the right to claim the transfer registration of ownership against the Plaintiff, thereby constituting a tort as an infringement of the Plaintiff’s right. Accordingly, the Defendant’s act constitutes a tort against the Plaintiff’s tort without the third party. (3) Accordingly, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the purchase price of KRW 420 million (1.4 billion (1.4 billion -98 billion).

B. Preliminary assertion

The Defendant sold each of the lands of this case and obtained profits from KRW 420 million without any legal cause. The Plaintiff suffered losses from losing the right to claim ownership transfer registration of each of the lands of this case, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 420 million due to the return of unjust enrichment.

3. Determination

A. Judgment on the primary argument (1) Violation of delegation agreement

In addition, the legislative purport of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name (hereinafter “Real Estate Real Name Act”) to contribute to the sound development of the national economy by preventing anti-social acts, such as speculation, evasion, and evasion of real estate transactions, which abuse the real estate registration system, and by stabilizing real estate prices, by having a title truster and a title trustee register ownership and other real rights in the name of the actual right holder so as to coincide with the substantive legal relationship. In addition, in light of the content and attitude of regulating the title trust relationship under the Real Estate Real Name Act where the title truster and the title trustee violate the prohibition of the registration under the name trustee under a title trust agreement and criminal punishment for both the title truster and the title trustee, the title truster and the title trustee cannot be deemed to have a trust relationship based on the administrative affairs, customs, cooking, and faith for the establishment of embezzlement, even though the title truster and the title trustee are null and void. Moreover, the de facto consignment relationship, which may exist between the title truster and the title trustee, is merely a violation of the Real Estate Real Name Act that constitutes an unlawful crime (see Supreme Court Decision 20196Da.

Pursuant to the aforementioned legal doctrine, the title trust agreement asserted by the Plaintiff and the implied delegation agreement incidental thereto cannot be deemed as a trust relationship with a value equivalent to invalidation and protection in accordance with the Real Estate Real Name Act. Thus, even if the Defendant disposed of each of the instant land in violation of the aforementioned legal doctrine, it cannot be deemed as a tort against the Plaintiff. (2) The claim for infringement of claims by a third party is asserted by the Plaintiff.

The illegality of a claim infringement by a third party shall be determined individually by taking into account the content of the infringing claim, the attitude of the infringing act, the intent of the infringing person, and the existence of the year. Determination should be made carefully by taking into account the need to guarantee the freedom of transaction, the public interest including economic and social policy factors, the balance between the parties’ interests, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da25021, Sept. 6, 2007).

According to the above legal principles, the Health Board, ① the Real Estate Real Name Act is subject to criminal punishment for both the title truster and the title trustee; ② the disposal of real estate by a title trustee who has received the registration of ownership transfer based on an invalid title trust agreement pursuant to Article 4(3) of the Real Estate Real Name Act is effective in cases where the title trustee disposes of real estate to a third party; ③ as seen above, the title trust agreement and implied delegation agreement asserted by the Plaintiff cannot be deemed as a trust relationship with a value equivalent to invalid and protected in violation of the Real Estate Real Name Act; and the content and attitude of the regulation on the title trust relationship under the Real Estate Real Name Act, even if the Defendant disposed of each of the instant land without the consent of the Plaintiff, it cannot be said that the tort was established as a claim infringement by

The plaintiff's primary argument is without merit.

나. 예비적 주장에 관한 판단 ( 1 ) 부당이득반환의무의 발생( 가 ) 위 인정사실과 앞서 든 각 증거 및 갑 제14, 23, 24호증, 을 제16 내지 18호증의 각 기재, 증인 임◆◆의 증언에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면, 다음의 사실을 인정할 수 있다 .

① 원고는 임◆◆를 대리하여 2009. 2. 15. 황◎◎를 대리한 문□□과 이 사건 각 토지에 실버타운 및 복지요양시설을 설립하는 내용의 공동사업을 하는 공동사업계 약 ( 이하 ' 이 사건 공동사업계약'이라 한다)을 체결하였다. 이 사건 공동 사업계약에서는 이 사건 각 토지의 매매대금 12억 원 중 금융대출금 6억 원을 공제한 나머지 6억 원을 임◆◆와 황◎◎가 각 3억 원씩 출연하기로 하였고, 공동사업을 위한 법인이 설립되면 황◎◎가 위 법인에 이 사건 각 토지의 소유권이전등기를 마쳐주기로 하였다.

원고는 임◆◆를 대리하여 같은 날 황◎◎를 대리한 문□□과 이 사건 각 토지의 1/2 지분을 6 억원에 매수하는 계약을 체결하였는데, 매매대금 6억 원 중 3억 원 및 사무실 운영비 5,000만 원을 합산한 3억 5,000만 원은 약속어음으로 지급하기로 하였고, 나머지 3 억 원은 이 사건 각 토지의 근저당채무 중 3억 원을 승계하는 것으로 대체하기로 하였다. 원고는 같은 날 액면금액 2억 원의 약속어음 및 액면금액 1억 5,000 만 원의 약속어음 총 2장의 각 제 1배서인란에 임◆◆ 명의의 배서를 하고, 제2배 서인란에 원고 명의의 배서를 한 후 문□□에게 주었다.

③ 이 사건 공동사업계약에 따라 2009. 3. 26. 제주관광실버레져타운 영농조합법인 ( 이하 ' 이 사건 영농조합법인'이라 한다)이 설립되었는데, 대표이사 및 이사로 임◆◆가, 이사로 문□□ 등이 각 취임하였다.

④ On June 26, 2009, 150 million won was returned to the Plaintiff on June 26, 2009, when the ownership of each land of this case was not transferred to the instant farming association corporation. On the same day, △△△ prepared a written confirmation that the Plaintiff invested KRW 78,394,480 to the Plaintiff on the same day.

⑤ On November 24, 2010, the Plaintiff completed the registration of provisional disposition with respect to each of the instant land upon the decision of provisional disposition prohibiting the disposal of the right to claim the refund of the purchase price as the preserved right (No. 2010Kahap394, Jeju District Court).

④ On June 27, 2011, the Plaintiff prepared a confirmation document stating that “the Plaintiff shall prepare a sales contract, which the Plaintiff shall purchase each of the instant land, between knives and knives.”

그 후 문□□은 2011. 10. 27. 이 사건 영농조합법인의 이사에서 해임되었고, 같은 날 피고의 동생인 안■■이 이사로 취임하였다. ( 나 ) 위 인정사실에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하여 알 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 ① 원고는 임◆◆를 대리하여 황◎◎와 이 사건 영농조합법인을 설립하기로 하고 문□□에게 약속어음 2장을 주었으나, 이 사건 영농조합법인에게 이 사건 각 토지에 관한 소유권이전등기가 이루어지지 못하여 문□□은 약속어음 1장을 반환하였고, 그 후 원고는 이 사건 각 토지에 관하여 처분금지가처분 결정을 받은 점, ② 원고와 황◎◎는 원고가 이 사건 각 토지를 매수하는 매매계약서를 작성하기로 약속하였고, 황◎◎의 대리인인 문□□이 이 사건 영농조합법인의 이사에서 해임되고 피고의 동생인 안■■이 이사 로 취임 한 점, ③ 황◎◎는 피고에게 매매를 원인으로 이 사건 각 토지의 소유권이전등기를 마쳐 주었고, 원고와 피고 사이에서는 이 사건 각 토지의 매매권리는 원고에게 있다는 이 사건 각서가 작성된 점에 비추어 보면, 원고는 황◎◎로부터 이 사건 각 토지를 매수하면서 그 등기는 피고의 명의로 하였다고 할 것이다. ( 다 ) 따라서 피고는 명의신탁을 받은 이 사건 각 토지를 매도하여 법률상 원인 없이 매매대금 상당의 이익을 얻었고, 원고는 황◎◎에 대한 소유권이전등기청구권이 상실되는 손해를 입었으므로, 피고는 원고에게 이 사건 각 토지의 매매로 인하여 얻은 이익을 부당이득으로 반환할 의무가 있다. ( 2 ) 부당이득의 범위

나아가 부당이득의 범위에 관하여 보건대, 위 인정사실과 앞서 든 각 증거 및 갑 제 17 호증, 을 제 28호증의 각 기재, 이 법원의 김△△에 대한 사실조회 결과, 증인 김△△의 증언에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면, 피고가 2014. 4. 7. 김△△에게 이 사건 각 토지를 14 억 원에 매도하면서 매매대금 중 9억 8,000만 원은 김△△이 이 사건 각 토지의 근저당 채무를 인수하는 것으로 갈음한 사실, 피고가 같은 날 김△△으로 부터 나머지 4 억 2,000만 원을 지급받은 사실을 인정할 수 있고, 을 제27, 29호증의 각 기재만으로는 위 인정에 방해가 되지 아니한다. 따라서 피고는 특별한 사정이 없는 한 원고에게 4 억 2,000 만원을 반환할 의무가 있다. ( 3 ) 피고의 상계 항변 ( 가 ) 피고는, 원고에 대하여 ① 이 사건 각 토지에 관하여 지출한 비용 150,009,797 원 ( = 2011. 10. 20. 지출한 취득세 25,780,000원 + 2011. 10. 21.부터 2014. 4. 8. 까지 이 사건 각 토지의 근저당채무에 발생한 이자를 대납한 돈 124,229,797 원), ② 2010. 11. 10. 부터 2012. 8. 14.까지 피고의 동생 안■■ 및 피고가 운영하는 법인계좌를 통하여 원고에게 송금하여 대여해 준 돈 231,620,200원, ③ 그 밖에 2010. 11. 22. 부터 2011. 4. 12.까지 원고에게 대여해 준 돈 116,770,000원의 합계 498,399,997원 상당의 채권을 가지고 있으므로, 위 부당 이득반환채권과 대등액에서 상계한다고 주장한다 .

(B) Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of pleadings as to the evidence and evidence set forth in Nos. 1, 2, 4, 15, and 24 as to the above facts and evidence, the Defendant spent KRW 25,780,00 with respect to each of the instant lands on October 20, 201, and KRW 124,29,797 with respect to each of the instant lands from October 21, 201 to April 8, 201, the Defendant paid KRW 970 with the interest on each of the instant lands at KRW 150,00,000, KRW 150,009, KRW 797 with respect to each of the instant lands at KRW 70, KRW 970 with respect to each of the instant lands at KRW 50,00, KRW 970 with respect to each of the instant claims by the Defendant. However, the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone alone is insufficient to find otherwise to the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated by the annual rate of 5% as stipulated in the Civil Act from April 11, 2014, which is the date when unjust enrichment was established with respect to the existence and scope of the obligation to pay, to the Plaintiff, from the date when the Defendant received KRW 420 million from Kim △△△△△△△△, to the date when unjust enrichment was established, until May 17, 2018, and from the following day until the date when the amount of the obligation to pay is fully repaid, the Defendant is obliged to pay damages for delay calculated by the annual rate of 15% as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Kim Hyun-tae

Judges Jeon Jae-chul

Judges Lee Jin-ia