beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The facts concerning the occurrence of the Plaintiff’s claim against C are as shown in the attached Form
2. The description of the cause of the claim; and
B. On August 14, 2017, the Defendant, the wife of C, entered into a contract to purchase G apartment H heading F in Daejeon Seosung-gu F (hereinafter “instant apartment”) for KRW 374,00,000, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on October 30, 2017.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 11, 14, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. The plaintiff's assertion that ① in the process of acquiring the apartment of this case, the defendant attached thereto.
1. As indicated in the reasoning, asserting that C donated the purchase fund to the Defendant from August 14, 2017 to October 30, 2017, C sought revocation of fraudulent act and compensation for value, or (selective) C agreed to trust the name of the apartment of this case to the Defendant, but C agreed to trust the name of the apartment of this case to the Defendant, the title trust agreement between the husband and wife was null and void, and thus, the Defendant claimed a return of unjust enrichment against C by subrogation, who is insolvent, based on the obligee’s subrogation right.
B. The Plaintiff’s assertion is premised on the premise that the Defendant received a donation of the purchase fund from C or received a purchase fund pursuant to the title trust agreement when he purchases the apartment of this case. The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, including the evidence Nos. 11 and 12, the National Court Administration Office of this Court, and the fact inquiry results about the head of Yeonsu-gu Incheon Metropolitan City I Dong, is insufficient to acknowledge the fact of receiving the purchase fund itself, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.
According to the statements in Eul's evidence Nos. 2 through 4, the defendant has been living in J bank loans and apartments of this case.