logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2018.12.21 2017가단143561
부당이득반환등 청구의 소
Text

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Facts of premise;

A. The details of the ownership transfer registration that took place in turn in the Defendant’s future on the 1-8 real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “1-8 real estate”) are as follows.

The Defendant’s registration of transfer of real estate C is the first real estate D and E on June 1, 2006. C on June 21, 2006.06.03, 2007.03, 2006.04.06.04. 2.06.06.06.06.06.07. 26. 2004.07. 26.06. 2006. 07. 2006. 7. 7. 04. 7. 2006. 7. 206. 7. 2006. 7. 12. 2004. 11. 204. 2006. 7. 8. 2006. 3. 206.

B. On April 17, 2017, the Defendant sold to I real estate Nos. 1 through 5 in the purchase price of KRW 147,00,000,000. On the 19th of the same month, the ownership transfer registration was made in the future. On the other hand, C is a de facto spouse of the Plaintiff, and the Defendant is a father and wife of the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-2 through 6, Gap evidence 2-2, Gap evidence 3-2, 3-3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff asserts as follows, and sought a return of unjust enrichment amounting to KRW 147,00,000 for the real estate of KRW 1-5. As to the remaining real estate of KRW 6-8, the Plaintiff and the Defendant seek the implementation of the procedures for the registration of transfer of ownership based on the cancellation of the gift agreement with the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

Real estate Nos. 1-8 was purchased by the Plaintiff and thereafter returned to C later, and only the registration title was entrusted to C. The Plaintiff, instead of returning real estate Nos. 1-8 from C to the Plaintiff, donated to the Defendant on the condition of the Plaintiff’s old-age salary, etc., and did not directly register the ownership transfer from C, but did not perform the burden.

However, the Defendant sold real estate from 1 to 15 to 147,00,000 won for the purchase price, thereby preventing the Plaintiff from returning real estate even if the Plaintiff cancels the gift contract on the grounds of the Defendant’s nonperformance of obligation. As such, the Defendant takes unjust enrichment equivalent to the purchase price.

arrow