beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) the Defendant, a non-party to the Plaintiff’s external third village, concluded a title trust agreement with the Plaintiff and purchased 1/2 shares of Pyeongtaek-si C, D, and E (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”); and (b) the Defendant, around May 31, 2013, borrowed KRW 20 million from the Plaintiff and did not repay the loan, under the pretext that the Defendant would pay the transfer income tax imposed on the Defendant and other right holders (F) of each of the said real estate; and (c) sought a return of unjust enrichment of KRW 20 million against the Defendant.
2. Determination
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is premised on the premise that the Defendant borrowed KRW 20 million from the Plaintiff on or around May 31, 2013. The Defendant’s assertion is recognized as either the dispute between the parties, or the fact that the Defendant received KRW 20 million from the Plaintiff on the said date is recognized as either the evidence No. 5 and No. 20 (including each number), and No. 1, but the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff is insufficient to acknowledge that the Defendant was paid the said money as the source of the loan, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.
B. On the other hand, even though it is not bound by the facts recognized in the judgment of other civil cases, etc., the facts established in the already established civil cases shall be valuable evidence unless there are special circumstances. Thus, it cannot be rejected without a reasonable reason. In particular, the facts that the two previous and previous civil cases are identical to the parties to the dispute and form the basis of the dispute are the same, but it is more so where a new claim can be filed as a result of the difference in the subject matter of lawsuit and not contrary to res
(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Da92312, 92329, Sept. 24, 2009, etc.). In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement in subparagraph 1 of Article 1, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 20 million from the Plaintiff on May 31, 2013 and sought the return of the borrowed money.