logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
서울동부지방법원 2015.12.08 2014가단49617
사유재산에 대한 인도
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 2.3 million to the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from October 7, 2014 to December 8, 2015.

Reasons

1. Summary of the parties' arguments;

가. 원고 주장의 요지 ⑴ 주위적 청구 ㈎원고는 이 사건 개를 매수하여 230만 원의 대금의 지급을 모두 마쳤다.

㈏만일 이 사건 개 매수계약이 소유권유보부 할부매매라고 할 지라도, 원고가 매매대금을 모두 일시금으로 지급한 이상 원고가 소유권을 취득하였다.

㈐ 원고는 소외 C에게 일시로 이 사건 개를 보관시켰는데, 피고가 C로부터 이를 인도받아 점유하고 있으므로, 피고는 원고에게 이를 반환하여야 한다.

B. The conjunctive claim, if the Plaintiff is not the owner of the instant case, the purchase price of KRW 2.3 million that the Plaintiff paid to the Defendant on September 24, 2014 shall be returned to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

B. The gist of the Defendant’s assertion is that the instant purchase and sale contract was paid in installments in 65,000 won each month, and that the Plaintiff unilaterally exercised ownership without the Defendant’s consent, and thus, the Defendant’s rescission of the contract was thereby erroneous, thereby recovering the ownership of the instant purchase and sale contract. The Plaintiff did not have any right to the instant opening.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as to the Plaintiff’s primary claim, the Plaintiff agreed to pay KRW 65,000 per month by dividing the instant unit from the Defendant engaged in the crowdfunding business into 2.3 million, on May 24, 2014, by 36 months, when purchasing the instant unit from the Defendant, who is engaged in the crowdfunding business under the trade name of “D,” (No evidence No. 1 states that it is an installment sale; however, at the bottom of the lower judgment, the Plaintiff may recognize the fact that the Plaintiff remitted all of the remaining remaining remaining parts to the Defendant on September 22, 2014, but it is insufficient to view that the Plaintiff acquired ownership after fully paying the purchase price for the instant unit.

Rather, B 3, 10, 14, 15, 16, 16.

arrow