logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2016.08.17 2015가단86493
부당이득금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The non-party D, who operated the business of "C", borrowed KRW 500 million from the defendant around March 1995. At that time, the plaintiff, under the plaintiff's hand, who had been employed by the above D, requested by the non-party E (the plaintiff's testimony appears to have been living together around that time, according to the witness D's testimony), requested by the non-party E to secure the above D's obligation, and the defendant and the defendant entered into a contract to establish a right to collateral security on March 16, 1995, and completed the registration of creation of the right to collateral security on March 18, 1995 on the F of the Gyeong-gun, Gyeong-gun, and G's land owned by the plaintiff. The defendant applied for a voluntary auction on September 22, 2014 with the above right to collateral security and did not have received the plaintiff's notice of the decision to commence the auction on March 16, 2015.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. The plaintiff is the cause of the claim of this case. The above right to collateral security was to secure only KRW 300 million out of the loan debt of KRW 500 million against D against the defendant. On May 31, 1996, the above right to collateral security was extinguished by repayment of KRW 300 million to the defendant, and accordingly, the defendant promised to cancel the above right to collateral security establishment registration. Even if not, the payment period of the above KRW 300 million was expired on July 30, 1997 after the lapse of 10 years from July 30, 2007, since the above obligation expired on July 30, 2007, since the defendant filed a request for auction against each of the above land and received a distribution without any legal cause, the defendant asserts that he is liable to return the above dividend to the plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

B. Therefore, around May 31, 1996, the above D repaid the Defendant a KRW 300 million and the secured obligation was extinguished.

arrow