beta
Text
The plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim added by this court are all dismissed.
after the filing of an appeal.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, except for the addition of "the judgment on the conjunctive claim added by the plaintiff in this court" to "the judgment on the conjunctive claim" as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, and thus, it is cited as it is by the main sentence
2. Judgment on the conjunctive claim
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion by the parties is as follows: “The Defendant’s respective real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each land of this case”).
() In the event that the Plaintiff did not accept donation at the time of Ha-Nam, the Plaintiff would be required to return again, and the Defendant’s representative director’s wife and the Defendant’s in-house director transferred KRW 15,00,000 to R., which is the Defendant’s in-house director, and the Defendant did not return each of the instant land to the Plaintiff without returning it to the Plaintiff. As such, the Defendant ought to return the said KRW 15,00,000 to the Plaintiff as
The defendant asserts that the defendant did not have any obligation to return the above KRW 15,00,000 to the plaintiff, as if he purchased each of the lands of this case formally from the plaintiff in order to recover each of the lands of this case, and immediately received the above KRW 15,00,000 from the plaintiff.
B. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 5 as well as the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer for each of the instant land on May 15, 2017 to the Defendant on the grounds of sale and purchase on May 11, 2017. The Plaintiff, around May 15:32, 2017, transferred KRW 15,000,000 to the Defendant and the Defendant’s director, around 16:10 on the same day after receiving KRW 15,00 from the Defendant, around May 15, 2017.
However, the above facts alone are insufficient to recognize that the Defendant was paid KRW 15,000,000 to the Plaintiff when the Defendant did not contribute each of the instant land to the Hanam-si, and that it was paid by the Plaintiff.