beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The following facts are acknowledged as either of the parties to a dispute or as a whole by taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence 1 and 3:
A. The Plaintiff owned 1,323/2,90 m2,907 m2 (hereinafter “instant real property”) in Gyeong-dong, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do, and the Defendant owned 1,584/2,907 m2 (hereinafter “instant real property”).
B. On June 9, 2015, the Plaintiff sold the Plaintiff’s co-ownership shares among the instant real estate to D and received KRW 50 million from D.
2. The Plaintiff asserted that, around June 2015, the Plaintiff sold all of the instant real estate, including the Plaintiff’s co-ownership, to a third party at KRW 130 million, including the Plaintiff’s co-ownership ( KRW 150,000,000 per 3.3 square meters per 3 square meters), and agreed to pay KRW 50,000,000 from D on June 9, 2015, but in fact, the Defendant sold the instant real estate to D at KRW 260,00,000 ( KRW 3,00,000 per 3.3 square meters per 3 square meters), and then embezzled the remainder after deducting KRW 50,000,000,000 which was already paid from the Plaintiff’s co-ownership share, and thus, the Defendant is liable to return it as unjust enrichment.
The sole descriptions of evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 5 are insufficient to deem that a sales contract for the real estate of this case was concluded between the original defendant and D with respect to the real estate of this case, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.
Rather, in full view of the statements in Eul evidence No. 3 and the fact-finding conducted by the judicial scrivener Eul of this court, the first original defendant attempted to sell all of the real estate of this case to D in the future, but in fact the original defendant decided to sell his share separately, and then the plaintiff sold his share in the real estate of this case to D in KRW 50 million.
Ultimately, the plaintiff's assertion cannot be accepted.
3. Conclusion.