logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2019.05.21 2019가합101312
부당이득금반환
Text

1. The plaintiff's primary and conjunctive claims are all dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On September 23, 2005, the Defendant stated the purchase price of KRW 35 million in the real estate sales contract (Evidence B No. 300 million) of Songpa-gu Seoul apartment D (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”) in the name of the Plaintiff, which was KRW 315 million, but the Defendant stated after deducting KRW 20 million in cash paid by the Defendant.

In purchasing the lease deposit, KRW 245 million, which is the remainder after excluding KRW 90 million, was paid as KRW 30 million on September 23, 2005, the intermediate payment of KRW 100 million on September 30, 2005, and KRW 15 million on October 7, 2005.

B. The instant apartment was reconstructed, and the ownership preservation was completed on August 30, 2012 under the Plaintiff’s name, and sold at KRW 625 million on April 30, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry in Eul evidence 1 to 3 (including branch numbers in the case of additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Plaintiff 1) In the first place, upon the Plaintiff’s solicitation for investment in purchase of apartment units, the Plaintiff has a duty to pay the Plaintiff the amount of money equivalent to the Plaintiff’s joint maintenance amount of KRW 268,746,50 (=625,000,000) x (14,048,127/35,300,000) x (35,000,000) / (2) 4,005,000,000 won on October 4, 2005, and 6,048,986,000 won on October 1, 2005, and 1448,000 won on October 7, 2005 18, and thus, the Defendant has a duty to revoke the Plaintiff’s investment and delay damages as the Plaintiff’s repayment to the original state.

B. The defendant did not have invested in the apartment of this case purchased by the defendant, and the defendant bears the registration tax, additional contributions, property tax, etc., and it was merely purchased with the plaintiff's consent by proposing to borrow the plaintiff's name at the expense of capital gains tax.

In addition, February 2005.

arrow