logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2020.06.10 2019나26986
부당이득금
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for adding or adding as mentioned below 2, and thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. A part concerning addition or height;

(a) Appendix 7 of the first instance court's decision "Seoul Eastern District Court 2016Kahap106757 "Seoul Eastern District Court 2016Gahap106757 and 2017Gahap103564 (combined)" shall be added to "Seoul Eastern District Court 2016Gahap106757 and 2017Gahap103564

(b) Appendix 13 of the first instance court's decision "Seoul High Court 2018Na2007465, Seoul High Court 2018Na2018Na2018Na2007472 (combined)" shall be amended to "Seoul High Court 2018Na2018Na207472 (Joint)."

(c) from the 6th sentence to the 7th sentence of the first instance court shall be followed as follows.

“1) The Defendant asserts that each of the instant buildings is owned by the Defendant’s sole possession, but it is merely the title trust to the Deceased for the purpose of tax saving, etc., and that the Deceased did not bear the obligation to return unjust enrichment to the Plaintiffs, the inheritor of the Deceased, because the Deceased was not the actual owner of some of the above buildings.

According to the records in Gap evidence No. 7-1 to 10, Eul evidence No. 2, and No. 3 as to each of the buildings of this case, it is not sufficient to recognize that the defendant held title trust of some of the buildings of this case to the deceased on the basis of the above facts and evidence No. 1, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge them. Thus, the above assertion by the defendant is without merit, since it is not sufficient to acknowledge that the defendant held title trust of some of the buildings of this case to the deceased on the part of the building of this case.

A person shall be appointed.

(d)No 7th (Account Number:AE) of the first instance court ruling has changed the “(Account Number: AG)” into “(Account Number):

(e) Part 8 of the judgment of the first instance court, “No evidence exists to acknowledge the objection” in Part 3.

arrow