Whether it constitutes unjust enrichment or unjust enrichment

Since the transfer of ownership appears to be consistent with the intention of the actual purchaser and the truster, it cannot be deemed that the defendant, who is the trustee, has a benefit from the trust's damage.

Suwon District Court Decision 2016Kadan5495 Doz. 2016

Korea

Ma**

In the future, the registration of ownership transfer (hereinafter referred to as the "registration of ownership transfer of this case") has been completed.

C. A. The facts constituting the crime described below as heading 2015 high-ranking 5444 of Suwon District Court branching Suwon District Court

(Violation of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder's Name) A punishment shall be imposed on March 5, 2015 from the above court.

The summary order of KRW 3 million was notified.

Any person registers any real right to real estate under the name of the title trustee according to the title trust agreement.

shall not be allowed.

Nevertheless, the defendant is the actual owner who purchased the real estate of this case.

In order to carry out a title trust agreement and to purchase the above real estate in the name of afff.

Accordingly, the defendant, at the office of two-gg certified judicial scrivener in b. 8 March 2008, b. 452, Jung-ri, Dong-dong 452,

A sales contract with a buyer on a real estate shall be prepared for the following year;

The original District Court BB registry office completed the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of afff."

D. As to the instant real estate, bB Co., Ltd. on December 16, 2016, after the filing of the instant lawsuit.

Transfer of ownership by reason of sale on December 15, 2016 in the future of the Trine (hereinafter referred to as the "Trine")

Registration has been completed.

[Grounds for Recognition: Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 6, 7 and the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The parties' assertion

1) Plaintiff

(A) Isa is the name of the defendant of the ownership of the instant real property purchased from e, etc.

of this case. The defendant is a party to the sales contract of this case, and the e, etc. and the above.

The sales contract was concluded, and Gangnam et al. knew that a title trust agreement was made between Ea and the Defendant.

As such, the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder's Name (hereinafter referred to as the "Real Estate Real Name Act") is not available.

Pursuant to paragraphs (1) and (2) of Article 4, even if the title trust agreement between Ea and the defendant is null and void, that name

The defendant, who is a trustee, shall acquire the full ownership of the real property of this case, and Isa

Since it was not possible to acquire ownership of the property from the beginning of the beginning, the defendant provided from Isa.

the purchase funds received shall be deemed to have been unjustly earned by the Defendant, and thisa shall not be deemed to have been unjust by the Defendant.

The plaintiff does not exercise his right to claim the return of the profit, and there is no sufficient means to pay national taxes to the plaintiff;

The plaintiff, who is a creditor, exercises his right to claim restitution of unjust enrichment on behalf of the creditor.

15 million won (the down payment of the instant sales contract and the down payment of KRW 40 million) to the Plaintiff

There is an obligation to pay the amount of KRW 10 million and the amount of damages for delay.

(B) The seller of the instant real property has filed a claim for restitution of unjust enrichment with the Defendant who is the trustee.

in the case of "contract title trust", even in the case of "contract title trust" in the reference document submitted by the plaintiff after the closing of argument.

If the trustee is malicious even if he is bad faith, the Plaintiff, the obligee, the obligee, is subrogated to the title truster.

title trustee and title trustee's cancellation of ownership transfer registration against the seller.

claim may be filed, and the ownership of the real property in this case is already a third party to the non-party company

the seller’s good faith, as it was transferred to the court, and did not set up against a third party with invalidity of title trust;

regardless of bad faith, the title truster shall file a claim for restitution of unjust enrichment equivalent to the purchase price with the subrogated trustee.

There is a statement to the effect that the right has been vested).

2) Defendant

The substantial purchaser of the real property of this case shall be the

The development of food company ii. In addition, at the time of the sales contract of this case, the seller Kange et al. is bb

After concluding a sales contract with a transportation agency, etc. and receiving a sales price, the transfer registration is over the defendant.

Since there was a bad faith such as wintering, A.a. cannot obtain a claim for return of unjust enrichment against the defendant.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is not reasonable from any perspective.

B. The actual purchaser of the instant sales contract and the contract under the proviso of Article 4(2) of the Real Estate Real Name Act

Determination on whether title trust falls under title trust

Each entry of Gap evidence 1 through 5, each entry of Gap evidence 3, 5, and 10, and witness Kim Il

The following facts and facts recognized by the purport of the entire testimony and pleading are not true:

(1) Is investigated by an investigative agency for a violation of the Real Estate Real Name Act.

B. At the time of the purchase of the real property in this case, Isa to disclose the purpose and details of the purchase.

The actual purchaser of real estate stated to the effect that the sales contract of this case was led, and that this was the same.

In addition, “the non-party company whose ownership of the instant real estate was transferred to the Defendant as a representative for the movement thereof.

In the future, it also stated that the seller would be able to move, and that the seller's stronge, etc.

of this case between the corporation ii development and one other, whose representative director is Lee k-k's real estate

The sales contract concerning the case was prepared, and the case was entered into the name of the defendant at the buyer's request.

The fact that a sales contract has been prepared, and ③ the lending of e, etc. substituted by the payment of the purchase price of this case

The non-party company received gold and security deposits by succession, and one of the sellers shall give testimony in this Court.

"At the time of the contract, there is no defendant at the time of the contract, and the defendant received the balance of KRW 110 million from the defendant."

There is no balance, and there is no testimony that the balance was received from Ekk, and ④ the witness Kim Fuk also purchased.

at the request of the person, the change of the name of the contract and the registration from ii development of the corporation to 'the defendant'.

Along with Ekk that was not the defendant with no knowledge of the defendant, and with respect to the terms and conditions of the contract

(5) The non-party, on behalf of the non-party, who has testified to the effect that the non-party

In order to acquire ownership transfer in the future, the non-party company shall succeed to the seller's loans and deposits.

(6) Ea and mobile exchange are simple and representative of ii development corporation.

Leek-k, a director, at the time of the instant purchase and sale contract in accordance with a given status relationship with Lee a

It seems that there are many possibilities that he/she has served as a representative or an agent, and 7 the seller's stronge, etc.

that the defendant could have known that he was a person who lent the purchase name which is not the actual purchaser.

In full view, Isa becomes a party to a sales contract for the instant real property and is a party to such contract.

In purchasing movable property, only the instant sales contract and the name of the registration under the title trust agreement with the Defendant;

B. The sales contract of this case was entered into by the seller of this case. The seller of this case was the seller of this case

The transfer registration of this case in the name of the defendant is deemed to have been in favor of the purchaser.

It is reasonable to see that it constitutes a third party-party registered title trust.

C. Determination as to the Defendant’s obligation of restitution of unjust enrichment

1) As seen above, the transfer registration of ownership in this case is so-called "registration title trust with a third party".

Since the above transfer of ownership falls under the category, the registration of transfer of ownership is null and void in accordance with the main sentence of Article 4(2) of

In contrast, the registration of ownership transfer of this case is provided for in the proviso of Article 4 (2) of the Real Estate Real Name Act.

"A title trustee shall become a party to a contract for acquiring real rights to real estate."

and the other party to the contract did not know that the title trust agreement exists. The so-called "the name of the party"

The plaintiff's above assertion that the plaintiff's registration was effective because he falls under the "trust" shall be proved as A, No. 11.

The only part of the statements, evidence Nos. 3, 5, 10 is not sufficient to acknowledge it, and otherwise, this is not different.

there is no evidence to acknowledge this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion. Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion cannot be accepted.

2) Next, the Defendant’s return of unjust enrichment to Aa regardless of the seller’s good faith or bad faith

We examine the Plaintiff’s above assertion that the ownership of this case shall be free. As seen above, we examine the Plaintiff’s above assertion.

The registration of transfer is the so-called contract name that the defendant who is the title trustee becomes a party to the contract of this case.

the sale to the seller, not completed by the trust, at the disposal of the seller at the disposal of the seller at the disposal of the seller.

It was completed in accordance with the so-called third party registered title trust agreement that has paid the price, as mentioned above.

In the case of third party registered title trust, the defendant, as the trustee, without any legal ground, is the plaintiff's hand.

No benefit equivalent to the purchase price in the year shall be deemed to have been obtained by the trust (in this case, a truster).

A request for registration of transfer of a seller's ownership and the cancellation office of registration of transfer of a seller's ownership;

Whether liability is established due to the failure of the Gu's performance or not is a separate issue; and

If the seller’s bad faith is a contract title trust (a contract entered into by the Defendant as the trustee)

Even in the case of a title trust, according to the above facts and circumstances, the seller is in title trust.

Even if the ownership of the instant real estate falls under the category of the third party, the ownership of the instant real estate shall be known.

The transfer of this case to the non-party company is without the registration of transfer of this case

The trustee may recover the ownership of the real estate in this case from the seller because he/she could not assert the effect.

and accordingly, the trustee may not claim the return of the purchase price to the seller, and further the trustee may not claim the return of the purchase price

B. The transfer of ownership in the name of the non-party company is in accordance with the intention of Aa, the actual purchaser and the trust.

be deemed to be a trustee, and there is a benefit under Aa, as the trustee, to the defendant.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part cannot be accepted.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim cannot be accepted, and it is dismissed and it is so ordered as per Disposition.

partnership.

on April 27, 2017

on 15, 2017

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The defendant of the Gu office shall pay to the plaintiff 150 million won with 50 million won interest per annum from April 4, 2008 to the service date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 15% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

A. Isa reported transfer income tax on December 31, 2005 on the transfer of c c c d 692-3 and 7 lots, and the director of the Central District Tax Office affiliated with the defendant was confirmed to have reported transfer gains tax as a result of the investigation on January 2, 2008 and notified E-Ga of KRW 7,700,815,340 for the payment period of January 31, 2008. However, E-Ga did not pay the above taxes until now, and the amount of arrears as of the date of the lawsuit of this case reaches KRW 13,460,083,530,000,000 won (hereinafter referred to as "G 5,000,000,000 won for the remaining 300,000,0000,000 won for 300,000,0000,000 won (hereinafter referred to as "G 5,000,000.