(영문) 인천지방법원부천지원 2019.01.11 2018가단9847

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 인천지방법원부천지원 2019.01.11 2018가단9847

부당이득금

Text

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party).

Reasons

1. According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 1, it is recognized that the ownership transfer registration (the transaction value of KRW 95,00,000) was completed on April 24, 2012 with respect to the land of KRW 174 square meters (hereinafter "the instant land") owned by Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si (hereinafter "the instant village association"), and on May 18, 2018, to non-partyO on April 4, 2018 on the ground of registration.

2. Defendant D, the representative of the village council of this case, and Defendant E, his spouse, jointly and severally disposed of the land of this case, which was owned by the village council of this case, to theO, and embezzled the purchase price of KRW 95,000,000, and thereby inflicted damages on the members of the village council of this case. Thus, each of the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the designated parties, who are members of the village council of this case, shall compensate for the damages each of them (= KRW 95,500,000,000).

3. Judgment on the main defense of this case

A. The defendant's defense is merely a part of the members of the village council of this case by the plaintiff (appointed parties). Thus, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful as it was filed by a person who has no standing to be a party.

B. According to the legal status Gap evidence Nos. 1 and Eul Nos. 1 and 12 as well as the overall purport of the arguments and arguments, it is recognized that the village council of this case was made on Jan. 27, 2007 with respect to the village council of this case, according to the above rules of the village council, the village council of this case is composed of Kimpo-si residents (Article 2) and the purpose of friendship among their residents (Article 3), etc. (Article 3). The resolution is in principle the majority of the representatives of the total household who paid the village operation fund (Article 6), the village operation fund of this case is determined as an executive officer (Article 9). Accordingly, it is reasonable to view the village council of this case as a non-corporate group composed of all of the above Mountainous residents.

Supreme Court Decision 99Da4504 Delivered on April 23, 1999

유사 판례

-청주지방법원영동지원 2019.07.17 2019가합49

-울산지방법원 2015.08.19 2014가합17455

-울산지방법원 2018.11.21 2017가단54953

-서울고등법원 2017.06.09 2016나2017741

-울산지방법원 2020.02.06 2018나27423