logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2020.04.03 2019나2016589
부당이득금
Text

1. The plaintiffs' appeals against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. AM’s new construction of the instant building was replaced with the land of 524 square meters in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, NN Miscellaneous land (AK large 814.8 square meters; hereinafter “instant land”) around 1979, the land was replaced with the land of 47 square meters prior to AP, 44 square meters prior to AP, and 118 square meters prior to AP (AL large 1,007 square meters; hereinafter “instant land”). AM newly built a commercial building of 1st and third floors underground (hereinafter “instant building”) and completed a completion inspection on January 30, 1980.

B. The Defendants: (a) purchased the above-ground shop of the instant building from the buyer in lots or purchased them from the buyer in lots; or (b) purchased the underground floor store; or (c) purchased them in common. (b) AM planned to sell the instant building in lots by the long-term extension; (c) on this ground, in selling the section for exclusive use of the instant building for the purpose of sale in lots, entered the phrase “if the instant building is extended after the registration of ownership transfer of the relevant store, the buyer consents and submit all necessary documents to AM” under Article 11; (d) even if the instant building was sold in lots from June 22, 1979 to February 9, 1983, the Defendants transferred the ownership of the entire land, which falls under the relevant site, without transferring the ownership of the entire land, by completing the registration of ownership transfer pursuant to the sale in lots; and (e) transferred the ownership of the remainder of the ownership reserved by 13/133 shares in the portion of exclusive ownership.

C. At the time of the death of December 18, 192, only 742.19/1133 shares out of each of the land of this case were owned by AM, by disposing of some of the shares reserved by AM to other persons.

arrow