logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원안산지원 2014.06.26 2012가합8977
대여금 및 부당이득금
Text

1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 135,730,000 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and its related amount from October 3, 2012 to June 26, 2014.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On November 26, 2009, the Plaintiff purchased D 403 (hereinafter “D 403”)’s “Yansan-si, Yongsan-si,” and completed the registration of ownership transfer on December 21, 2009 under the Plaintiff’s name.

B. On September 11, 2009, the Plaintiff’s denial E obtained a loan of KRW 30,500,000 from the Korea Cmat Bank Co., Ltd., and the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 82,730,000 from the said bank on December 4, 2009.

C. On August 19, 2010, the Plaintiff purchased 28/80 shares of the land G and H incheon-si (hereinafter “Ycheon-si Land”) from F, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Plaintiff on the same day.

On December 9, 2010, the Plaintiff sold 14/80 shares in the land of Incheon City to I, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of I on January 17, 201.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 5, 6, 12, 28, Eul evidence No. 7 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the principal lawsuit

A. The parties' assertion 1) The plaintiff asserts that the defendant, while mediating a sales contract for D 403 with respect to the claim related to D 403, the actual purchase price was merely KRW 70,000,000, and the actual purchase price was deceiving the plaintiff as if the purchase price was 155,000,000, and acquired KRW 85,000 from the plaintiff by deceiving the plaintiff as if the purchase price was 15,000. Accordingly, the defendant asserted that there was no mediation of D 403, and that the plaintiff paid KRW 30,50,000 to the defendant for the purchase of the above real estate, and KRW 82,70,00,000 was paid for the plaintiff's existing purchase of the above real estate, and KRW 82,70,00,000 was used for the plaintiff's repayment of the lease deposit and the plaintiff's existing repayment of the debt. 2) In full view of the purport of Gap evidence No. 5, Gap evidence No. 29, and evidence No. 303. D's.

arrow