(영문) 의정부지방법원고양지원 2015.11.05 2015가단76304

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) 의정부지방법원고양지원 2015.11.05 2015가단76304

부당이득금

Text

1. The conjunctive claim in the instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The main claim of this case is dismissed.

3...

Reasons

1. Judgment on the main claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion is a creditor of indemnity against the defendant who subrogated for 149,421,834 won as joint and several surety debt of 149,421,834 against our bank on August 16, 2005.

However, on May 24, 2005, B sold an apartment under one’s name, which is the only property in excess of the debt, and purchased the D Apartment No. 510, 1301 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) located outside one parcel of land, and entrusted its name to the Defendant, the denyingr.

Therefore, the Plaintiff, a creditor against B, notified the Defendant of the termination of the above title trust on behalf of B, and sought payment of KRW 184,00,000 as a claim for return of unjust enrichment upon such termination.

B. It is not sufficient to recognize the fact that the Plaintiff purchased the apartment of this case with its own funds and held title trust to the Defendant, or the statement of Gap evidence No. 1-1 to No. 4 alone, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in the evidence Nos. 4 and 1-9, the defendant entered into a sales contract with E, the former owner of the apartment of this case, with KRW 184,00,000 on June 18, 2005, and paid KRW 10,000,000 on June 20, 2005 to E, as the down payment, from the account under the name of the defendant. After completing the registration of ownership transfer on July 19, 2005, the defendant was granted the registration of ownership transfer on the apartment of this case from the life insurance company of Korea on August 24, 2005 to KRW 135,00,000 on the apartment of this case as security, according to the fact that the defendant's purchase of the apartment of this case from around August 29, 205 to the maximum debt amount of the apartment of this case was revoked.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

2. Preliminary Claim

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2015.10.15 2015가합71238

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.05.27 2016가합510025

-전주지방법원 2014.11.27 2013가단43613

-춘천지방법원 2016.06.01 2015나2366

-인천지방법원 2017.02.08 2016가단20151