beta
Text
1. The part of the Plaintiff’s lawsuit against Defendant C regarding the obligee’s subrogation shall be dismissed.
2. Defendant B shall be the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On December 5, 2006, the Defendants purchased from E the land of KRW 215 million, each of which was distributed from E and purchased from E the land of KRW 1980,000,000 (hereinafter “instant land”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer under Defendant C’s name on December 21, 2006.
B. At the time, Defendant C established a collateral security on the instant land registered in its own name and received a loan of KRW 150 million from the FF Association (hereinafter “instant loan”). Under the condition that Defendant B redeems the principal and interest thereon, Defendant C lent it to Defendant B and used it as the said purchase price.
C. On January 3, 2007, the Plaintiff prepared and submitted a loan certificate (hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”) with the following contents to Defendant C, and paid interest on the loan of this case since then.
I receive from C the loan of KRW 00 million per day to D, which has been jointly purchased with the following gold certificates.
B-Gu (A) has interest on the land of the G Union loan as security.
Defendant C returned KRW 65 million out of the purchase price of the instant land to Defendant B on June 2007, and repaid all of the instant loans to the F Association around October 24, 2013.
[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 15 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The plaintiff's assertion
A. The Defendants initially purchased the instant land as joint investment and completed the registration of ownership transfer under Defendant C’s name. Accordingly, there was a contractual title trust among the Defendants in relation to the said land, and thereafter, the Plaintiff acquired the status of Defendant B’s above contractual title truster. Since the contract title trust is legally null and void, Defendant C should return the amount equivalent to the investment amount to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment. The scope of the claim is from March 7, 2006 to June 27, 2007.