logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2019.08.14 2018나64978 (1)
청구이의
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited the same reasoning as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the case where the defendant decides on the assertion that the defendant adds a new addition to the court of first instance as set forth in the following 2.

2. Additional determination

A. In relation to the Plaintiff’s claim for return of unjust enrichment, the Defendant’s summary of the Defendant’s assertion asserts that the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit within the aforementioned scope, since each of the deposit claims against F, G, H, I, I, and J. under the Plaintiff’s name, which was collected based on the claim seizure and collection order (hereinafter “instant claim seizure and collection order”) dated May 24, 2016, under the Plaintiff’s name, was substantially D’s claim and only lent the Plaintiff’s name. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the damage equivalent to the Plaintiff’s deposit claim was incurred due to the instant claim seizure and collection order based on the instant authentic deed.

B. On the other hand, the evidence submitted by the defendant alone is insufficient to recognize that each of the deposit claims collected based on the seizure and collection order of this case is substantially D's deposit claims, and there is no damage caused by the seizure and collection order of this case, and there is no evidence to acknowledge the defendant's assertion otherwise.

[Order of the court below] Even if D entrusted the name of the deposit owner to the Plaintiff, since ownership belongs to the trustee in external relationship under the legal principles of title trust, it is separate from the fact that the Plaintiff may have the obligation to transfer the deposit claim to D, and it is reasonable to view that the deposit owner of the deposit claim collected by the seizure and collection order of this case is the Plaintiff in relation to the Defendant). Therefore, the above assertion by the Defendant is without merit.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is accepted within the scope of the above recognition.

arrow