logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.01.12 2016가단33604
부당이득금반환
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On May 31, 2010, the Plaintiff and the Defendant: (a) at the time of each land listed in the separate sheet No. 2, the Plaintiff and the Defendant filed for the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the Plaintiff with respect to the land 10,11 (hereinafter “instant land”); (b) but, with respect to the land 1 through 5 (hereinafter “instant D”) in the name of E (or, with respect to F land permanently stationed, G name) and the land 6 through 9 (hereinafter “H land”) in the name of E (hereinafter “instant land”).

(hereinafter “each of the instant lands”). At the time of each building listed in the separate sheet No. 1, the Defendant had completed the ownership transfer registration under the name of the Defendant, but the part No. 1 and No. 2 was registered under the name of the Defendant’s attached list No. 1, and No. 1 and No. 2.

(J) On January 3, 2010, before the Defendant entered into an exchange contract with the Plaintiff, the Defendant died, and at the time of death, five children including the spouse and the Defendant, including the Defendant (hereinafter “instant building”) were entered into an exchange contract (hereinafter “instant exchange contract”).

In the process, the parties agreed to cancel the registration of restrictions on remaining rights, such as seizure, instead of the Defendant’s succeeding to the secured obligation of the right to collateral security established on each of the instant land. On the other hand, the parties agreed to provide the instant building to the financial institution as collateral and to distribute the loan to the Plaintiff

B. The Plaintiff and the Defendant take into account the difference between the location and use of each real estate subject to the instant exchange contract and the degree of limitation on rights arising from the right to collateral security established on each land of this case, which the Plaintiff intended to transfer its ownership.

arrow