beta
Text
1. Defendant A’s 32,979,105 won and 31,721,453 won among them shall be annual from May 27, 1993 to July 31, 1993.
Reasons
The part of the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant A does not conflict with the Plaintiff’s claim, such as the entry of the grounds for the claim in the attached Form.
The Plaintiff’s assertion on the part of the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant B has a monetary claim as stated in Article 1(1) of the Disposition upon the final and conclusive judgment against the past Defendant A.
However, on October 30, 2009, on the apartment of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 702 (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”), the registration of ownership transfer was completed on the ground of sale under the name of Defendant B, the wife of Defendant A, and Defendant B, with respect to the apartment of this case. The apartment of this case is a property acquired by the cooperation of the husband and wife during marriage between Defendant A and Defendant B, and in fact, Defendant A held a title trust with Defendant B with one-half of his own shares, and Defendant A has the right to claim a return of unjust enrichment of KRW 227,50,000, which is equivalent to the market price of the apartment of this case against Defendant B.
Therefore, in order to preserve the monetary claim against the defendant A, the plaintiff subrogated the defendant A to recover the above unjust enrichment of KRW 113,750,000.
Judgment
On October 30, 2009, in the marriage between Defendant A and Defendant B, the registration of transfer of ownership was made under the name of Defendant B with respect to the instant apartment on the ground of sale and purchase on February 12, 2009 (Evidence A5). Pursuant to Article 830(1) of the Civil Act, the real estate acquired by one side of the married couple in the marriage shall be presumed to be the unique property of the nominal owner. However, the presumption is not reversed solely on the fact that the other side, not the nominal owner, has cooperation in the acquisition of the real estate. In order to recognize that the other party was a title trust for convenience, the other party bears the burden of actual acquisition of the property, and the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff who asserts this.
However, at the time when Defendant B purchased the apartment of this case in 2009, Defendant A purchased the apartment of this case.