beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On April 26, 1985, according to the Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Real Estate (Act No. 3562), the registration of transfer of ownership in Category C was completed on the grounds of sale as of September 10, 1971.
B. The Korea Land Corporation completed the registration of ownership transfer of the instant land on October 11, 2007 due to consultation on the land for public use on October 9, 2007, and remitted KRW 82,582,00 to the bank account in the name of D (C) on October 17, 2007.
【Fact- without dispute over the ground for recognition】: Evidence No. 2-3, Evidence No. 34-8 and 9; purport of the whole pleadings
2. The Plaintiff, as a legitimate owner of the instant land, has the authority to receive the purchase price of the instant land as a result of the judgment on the cause of the claim. Since Defendant, C & D received the purchase price from the Korea Land Corporation and embezzled it, the Defendant asserts that C & D and D are jointly and severally liable to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the above purchase price.
Therefore, the evidence presented by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize the fact that the Defendant received the purchase price of the instant land from the Korea Land Corporation, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.
Rather, comprehensively taking account of the above evidence and evidence No. 45-4 and evidence No. 45-1, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against C and D seeking return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the purchase price of the land of this case separately from the lawsuit of this case. The court of first instance recognized that the Plaintiff is the owner of 6/2 of the land of this case, and that as for C and C, the above clan received the purchase price of the land of this case, the Plaintiff was obligated to return the amount equivalent to the Plaintiff’s share out of the purchase price to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment, thereby accepting part of the Plaintiff’s claim against D.