beta
Text
1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff and Defendant B are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.
purport, purport, and.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of this court’s judgment citing the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except when a part of the judgment of the court of first instance is cited or added as follows. Thus, the reasoning of this court’s judgment citing the main sentence of
2. Parts to be dried or added;
A. Part 3 to 14 of the decision of the court of first instance are as follows.
“On the other hand, in order to claim unjust enrichment against the title trustee on the instant Eri land and H land, the seller has to prove that the seller had knowledge of the title trust relationship. However, according to the Plaintiff’s assertion, F, G, which is the former owner of the instant H land, promoted the business jointly with Defendant B, and even in the instant Eri land, the seller completed the registration of title transfer in the future of Defendant C, since the seller completed the sales contract with Defendant B and completed the registration of title transfer. Thus, even if the Defendants acknowledged the title trust relationship, F, G, and D, which are the former owners, had to be known.”
B. As to Defendant B’s assertion, “Defendant B decided to operate a partnership business with F (land holder), M and housing construction business as a partnership business, and was invested in KRW 26,00,000 from M around June 2016. The Plaintiff was delegated the entire authority over the said investment amount by M around October 2016, and the Plaintiff demanded the offering of collateral for the instant housing site and forcedly without any choice to create a collateral on the instant housing site. After being paid KRW 21,00,000,000 as of February 8, 2017, the Plaintiff’s payment of KRW 5,00,000,000 as well as the remaining investment amount of KRW 20,00,000,000 as of KRW 20,000,000,000, and without any choice, it is asserted that the Plaintiff’s claim for the instant loan was included with the serial number of KRW 5,00,00,000.