beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 48,759,110 as well as 20% per annum from January 10, 2014 to the day of complete payment.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. With respect to three lots of land (hereinafter “instant land”) including the area of 2050 square meters (formerly, “Seoul-gun,” but the same had been changed to the administrative jurisdiction on July 17, 2012) before Sejong Special Self-Governing City, the ownership transfer registration was made in the name of E, and following the death of E, the ownership transfer registration was made in the name of E, namely, F (3/17 shares), its heir, and the Defendant (2/17 shares), who is his/her heir, (2/17 shares), H (2/17 shares), H (2/17 shares), J (2/17 shares), J (2/17 shares), and the Plaintiff (2/17 shares, and K, who is co-inheritors, died on September 11, 1991, and the ownership transfer registration was made in the name of each land expropriation corporation under the name of Korea Land Expropriation Corporation.
B. On October 5, 2011, the Plaintiff spent part of the money by receiving each land expropriation amount of KRW 31,928,880 and KRW 27,000,790 on the instant land deposited by the Korea Land Corporation, and paid the Defendant a refund of KRW 48,759,110 on October 16, 201 to the Defendant, a large part of which was deposited by the New Amateur Agricultural Co., Ltd. on October 12, 2011, taking out (I), with a maturity of KRW 50,00,000, and with a maturity of KRW 50,000,00,000.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3 (including provisional number), Eul evidence No. 3-1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The plaintiff asserted that although the defendant did not have any right to the above compensation, the land in this case under the name of E was pretended to be the property trusted by the defendant in title trust to E, and received the above money unfairly and took profits therefrom, the defendant asserts that the defendant should return the above amount of KRW 48,759,110 and the delay damages to the plaintiff as unjust enrichment.
As to this, the defendant in 192.