beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 107,064,928 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from January 15, 2015 to September 4, 2015.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The registration of ownership transfer was completed on February 28, 2003 under the Plaintiff’s name on the ground of the building Nos. 102 of Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and one parcel of land (hereinafter “instant real estate”), and the registration of ownership transfer was completed on June 8, 2007 under the above E and F name on the ground that the registration was sold to E and F in 200,000,000 won on May 30, 2007.
B. At the time of purchase and sale of the above real estate in the future of the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a contract for purchase and sale as the Plaintiff’s agent. The Defendant received KRW 200,000,000 as the sales price of the above real estate.
C. At the time of sale of the instant real estate, the secured debt amounting to KRW 92,935,072 of the secured debt amounting to KRW 120,000,000, which was established on the said real estate at the time of sale of the instant real estate (hereinafter “instant secured debt”) was repaid, and the said secured debt was cancelled on June 12, 2007.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 8, 10 through 14, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the facts of the judgment as to the cause of the claim, the defendant claimed damages for delay from January 15, 2015 (the plaintiff had a right to claim restitution of unjust enrichment from June 12, 2007) on the records, which clearly indicate that the sale price of the real estate in this case was 200,000,000 won minus KRW 92,935,072 of the secured debt amount of the instant right to collateral security (=200,000 - 92,935,072) and its existence and scope are 10,064,928 won from the sale price of the real estate in this case to the plaintiff as unjust enrichment. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff requested the defendant to pay damages from the time of receiving the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment from the time of receiving the claim for performance. Since there is no assertion or proof that the defendant was a malicious beneficiary before filing the lawsuit in this case, the defendant has received the above obligation within the scope of recognition).