(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2016.11.23 2016가합101707

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) 서울동부지방법원 2016.11.23 2016가합101707

부당이득금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

Basic Facts

The plaintiff married with C, thereby having A and D and the defendant under the chain.

As between E on December 24, 2008, the Defendant made a sales contract with respect to real estate listed in the attached list owned by E (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”), KRW 579 million shall be the purchase price, and the remainder of KRW 60 million shall be the date of the contract, until December 29, 2008, the intermediate payment of KRW 150 million shall be paid as of January 16, 2009, and the remainder of KRW 359 million shall be paid as of January 22, 2009, among the remainder of the contract amount of KRW 240 million,00 million shall be replaced by succeeding to the obligation to refund the lease deposit to the existing lessee (hereinafter “the sales contract of this case”).

After the Defendant paid the purchase price in full and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Defendant on January 22, 2009.

[Grounds for recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 6, and the plaintiff's assertion of the purport of the whole pleadings. The plaintiff asserted that the apartment of this case was purchased by the plaintiff, and entered into a contract title trust agreement with the defendant, who is an son under the circumstances of the company operated by the plaintiff, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the defendant. The title trust agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant is null and void by the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder's Name (hereinafter "Real Estate Real Name Act"). The registration of ownership transfer in the name of the defendant as to the apartment of this case is valid by Article 4 (1) 2 of the above Act, and the defendant acquired the ownership of the apartment of this case. Thus, the defendant who is the title trustee, obtained unjust enrichment from the amount equivalent to the purchase fund of this case. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay 30 million won and damages for delay paid by the plaintiff to the plaintiff.

As to the defendant's assertion, the defendant is between the plaintiff and the plaintiff.

참조조문

-부동산 실권리자명의 등기에 관한 법률

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2015.08.19 2014나59202

-수원지방법원안산지원 2015.01.07 2014가단102340

-광주지방법원 2020.09.22 2019가단521590

-서울서부지방법원 2020.07.23 2019가합38147

-수원지방법원 2016.01.20 2015가단2849