(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.10.16 2014가합55951

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.10.16 2014가합55951

부당이득금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. On May 17, 2012, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant arbitrarily sold D Apartment 104 1103 dong 1103 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) owned by the Plaintiff’s mother, and embezzled the purchase price of KRW 120 million by receiving KRW 120 million.

C On August 20, 2014, on the part of the Plaintiff, one of his smaller daughters, transferred the damage claim against the Defendant due to the said embezzlement, and notified the Defendant of the said transfer at that time.

Therefore, the Plaintiff seeks payment of KRW 120 million from the Defendant’s damage claim equivalent to the above purchase price.

2. The judgment of this Court

A. The following facts are recognized if each entry of Gap 5 and 6 added to the purport of the whole argument:

1) On September 20, 207, the instant apartment was transferred from E to C on July 27, 2012 to F on the following order: (a) the purchase price of the instant apartment was KRW 10 million on May 17, 2012, and KRW 15 million on July 27, 2012, to C on the bank account; and (b) the purchase price of the instant apartment was transferred from C on July 30, 2012 to the Defendant’s deposit account.

B. However, in light of the following circumstances as to the fact that “the apartment of this case is in fact owned by C, and the Defendant arbitrarily sold it, and embezzled the purchase price,” and the following circumstances acknowledged by adding up the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 5, No. 1, No. 2, and No. 3 and No. 1, and No. 2 to the witness’s testimony and partial testimony of the witness C are insufficient to acknowledge it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, the Defendant couple appears to have received the purchase price after purchasing the apartment of this case in the name of C by bearing the purchase price, and then selling it again in the name of C.

1. On July 26, 2007, the apartment of this case purchased from the former owner E to C the purchaser at KRW 80 million, and the Defendant.

유사 판례

-서울북부지방법원 2015.11.27 2015고단751

-부산지방법원 2013.02.04 2012고단6843

-인천지방법원 2019.07.04 2018노3222

-서울남부지방법원 2019.01.23 2018가단237187

-수원지방법원여주지원 2015.05.12 2014가단4271