beta
Text
The judgment below
The part against the Defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
The plaintiffs.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).
1. Regarding the plaintiffs' grounds of appeal
A. As to the assertion on the actual construction cost, the lower court acknowledged that the construction cost actually invested in the instant apartment was KRW 36,422,965,729, in full view of the relevant employment evidence.
The judgment below
Examining the reasoning in light of the record, the above fact-finding by the court below is justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules
B. As to the assertion on the legal interest initial date, Article 748(2) of the Civil Act provides, “A malicious beneficiary shall compensate for any loss incurred by returning the interest with interest added thereto.” Article 749(2) of the same Act provides, “When a bona fide beneficiary loses the interest, he/she shall be deemed a malicious beneficiary from the time he/she files the lawsuit.” In such cases, the beneficiary shall prove that he/she is a bad faith, and “when a lawsuit is filed” refers to when a copy of the complaint has been served on the defendant.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da119481, Feb. 13, 2014). Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court determined that the Defendant was liable to pay legal interest as a malicious beneficiary from the time when the Plaintiffs filed the instant lawsuit, namely, when the duplicate of the complaint was served on the Defendant.
In light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles on malicious beneficiaries.
2. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal
A. As to the assertion that the standard building cost reflected in the pre-sale conversion price of rental housing should be reflected.