beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On August 9, 2017, the Plaintiff prepared a notarial deed of a monetary loan agreement that “D, a joint guarantor, and a notary public, borrowed KRW 2,240,00,000 from the Plaintiff on November 18, 2016 to the due date of payment on August 10, 2017; and KRW 25% per annum of interest and delay damages; and D, as joint and several sureties, jointly and severally guaranteed the said debt.”
B. On February 22, 2018, the Plaintiff becomes the Defendant of the Plaintiff, the obligor D, and the third obligor as the Changwon District Court 2018TB based on the said notarial deed. “The Plaintiff was served on the Defendant with the claim claim: “The Plaintiff’s claim for the principal and interest on the Plaintiff’s loan to D amounting to KRW 2,935,013,698 ( principal amounting to 2,240,000,000, and interest calculated at the rate of 25% per annum from November 18, 2016 to February 13, 2018, and delay damages amounting to KRW 695,013,698)” of each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) trusted in the Defendant’s title trust. The instant collection order was served on the Defendant on February 27, 2018.
C. Meanwhile, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on May 12, 2016 and October 5 of the same year with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 6 through 9, respectively, as to each real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 through 5.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 6 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Assertion and determination
A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The plaintiff's assertion D held title trust with the defendant 1/2 of the real estate in this case. D has a claim against the defendant for return of unjust enrichment against the defendant 1/2 of the purchase price of the real estate in this case. Thus, according to the collection order in this case, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff as the collection creditor the amount of 600 million won out of the above return of unjust enrichment, and the delay damages therefor.