beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 50,684 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from March 10, 2016 to July 1, 2016, and the next day.
Reasons
1. Grounds for claim;
A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant began with the teaching system on the premise of marriage in 2012 and went through the marriage day around December 2014.
B. In around 2012, the Plaintiff intended to acquire a C apartment sales right (hereinafter “instant sales right”) in order to establish a new divorce house residing with the Defendant, but the Plaintiff failed to meet the membership qualification standards and joined a regional housing association under the name of the Defendant.
C. Around June 2013, the Defendant paid each of the KRW 3 million to the said regional housing association, around July 2013, KRW 10 million for the first down payment, and KRW 14 million for the second down payment around July 30, 2013. Of the said payments, the Plaintiff was liable to the Plaintiff according to an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.
At present, the sale right of this case has occurred with a premium of KRW 50 million.
E. Therefore, the Plaintiff has the real share of 1/2 of the premium of this case. Therefore, the Defendant obtained the benefit of 25 million won equivalent to 1/2 of the premium of this case out of the Plaintiff’s labor and property without any legal cause.
F. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remaining money and damages for delay calculated by deducting the Defendant’s deposit in the future of the Plaintiff on March 14, 2016 from the total sum of the said KRW 25 million and the first down payment of KRW 10 million paid by the Plaintiff, plus the said KRW 35 million.
(B) In light of the above circumstances, the Plaintiff is obligated to return the above money to the Defendant under the principle of good faith or equity, even if the Plaintiff did not have the obligation to return unjust enrichment.
A. The key issue of the instant case is whether the Plaintiff is entitled to seek partial payment to the Defendant, if a premium occurred in the sales right of the instant case.
However, even if it is assumed that the right of sale in this case was lost as alleged by the Plaintiff, it is also assumed that it was lost.