beta
Text
1. Defendant A’s KRW 70,794 and its relation to the Plaintiff’s KRW 5% per annum from June 6, 2015 to January 11, 2016.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. Each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant land”) was owned by C. On January 22, 1968, the ownership transfer registration was made under the name of D on January 16, 1968, for the reason of sale as of January 16, 1968. In other words, on December 29, 1983, the ownership transfer registration was made for the reason of inheritance by agreement division as of January 19, 1978 under the name of Defendant B, and on each of the instant land, the ownership transfer registration was completed under the name of Defendant A on July 27, 199 with respect to the land listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “instant land”).
B. The Plaintiff, as the executor of the public works project to develop Kimpo-si E in an industrial complex, acquired the land of this case from Defendant A through consultation, and paid KRW 68,57,00 as compensation for losses on November 21, 2005. ② The Plaintiff acquired the land of this case listed in the separate sheet Nos. 2, 3 (hereinafter “instant land”) from Defendant B through consultation and paid KRW 83,93,000 in total as compensation for losses on July 5, 2005.
C. However, around February 1951, C had been avoided in North Korea and had been living in that place until now, and there was a situation in which it was impossible for C to delegate the declaration of intent to sell or sell each of the instant land to the network D on January 16, 1968. Accordingly C filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff and the Defendants, etc. to seek the implementation of the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration of each of the instant land under the Incheon District Court Branch Decision 2007Kadan2505, and the said judgment became final and conclusive thereafter.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1, 2 and 3 evidence (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that each of the instant lands was the legitimate owner C and was not the Defendants. Therefore, the Defendants are obligated to return the compensation for losses paid to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment.
However, there is a problem.