1. The part against the defendant regarding the claim for return of unjust enrichment in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the revoked part shall be revoked.

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the facts of recognition are the same as the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The instant truck is owned by the Plaintiff and is owned by the Defendant Intervenor C (hereinafter “Supplementary Intervenor”).

(2) The Defendant asserts that there is no right to sell and purchase the instant truck without title in relation to the Plaintiff, and the Defendant is obligated to pay unjust enrichment equivalent to the pertinent fee to the Plaintiff. 2) The Defendant asserts that, insofar as the Plaintiff’s right to use and benefit from the instant truck was granted to the Intervenor based on the effective sales contract between the Intervenors, unjust enrichment is not established as long as the Defendant purchased and used the instant truck from the Intervenors.

B. The buyer of the construction machinery did not obtain ownership transfer registration

In the event that construction machinery is delivered by the performance of a sale and purchase contract, it shall be deemed that the effect of the sale and purchase contract has the right to possess and use the construction machinery, and it is reasonable to deem that the purchaser of the said construction machinery has acquired the right to possess and use the said construction machinery from the buyer. Therefore, the seller cannot file a claim for return of unjust enrichment on the ground that the buyer's possession and use of the said construction machinery is a benefit without any legal cause.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2001Da45355 Decided December 11, 2001, etc.). The Plaintiff delivered the instant truck to an assistant intervenor according to the sales contract with an assistant intervenor on June 23, 2012, and thereafter, the Defendant received delivery of the instant truck from an assistant intervenor pursuant to the instant sales contract.