beta
Text
1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 50 million to the Plaintiff; and (b) 5% per annum from May 23, 2008 to October 20, 2016 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. On May 2, 2008, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract where the Plaintiff sold the land at KRW 77,000,000 (hereinafter “instant land”) to the Defendant for the purchase price of KRW 733 square meters at KRW 77,00,000 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”), and completed the registration of ownership transfer to the Defendant on May 22, 2008.
The Defendant paid only KRW 27 million out of the above land purchase price to the Plaintiff, and had Nonparty D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) own the remainder of KRW 50 million on June 5, 2008, and completed the registration on June 3, 2008 (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) deliver and use the ENAS car to the Plaintiff, instead of paying KRW 50 million for the remainder of the purchase price.
At that time, the Defendant transferred the name of the owner of the instant vehicle to the Plaintiff after five years.
The Plaintiff did not conclude a lease agreement on the instant motor vehicle between the Defendant and the Nonparty Company.
On May 23, 2011, Nonparty Company sent to the Plaintiff a content-certified mail demanding the return of the instant vehicle by June 4, 2011, and filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking delivery of the instant vehicle by Seoul Eastern District Court 201Gadan57259, seeking the return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent of the instant vehicle from June 5, 201 to August 31, 2011. At the appellate court of the said lawsuit, Nonparty Company rendered a favorable judgment in favor of the Nonparty Company for the following reasons, and the Plaintiff appealed against the said judgment, but the said judgment became final and conclusive upon the final judgment of dismissal.
It is recognized that B (Defendant of this case) transferred the instant automobile to Defendant (Defendant of this case) instead of paying KRW 50 million out of the forest land purchase price of this case, and that the name was agreed to transfer the instant automobile after five years, and that the representative director of Plaintiff (Defendant of this case) and F directly delivered the instant automobile to the Defendant.
However, arguments are made in each description of evidence A, Nos. 1, 2, 32, 36, and No. 1.