(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2016.05.12 2014가단252538

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) 서울서부지방법원 2016.05.12 2014가단252538

부당이득금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The following facts may be acknowledged if there is no dispute between the parties, or if the purport of the entire pleadings is added to each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4.

On December 21, 2007, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against C with the Government District Court 2007Kadan24749, and was sentenced to the above court's ruling that "the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff 35,434,204 won and 35,254,816 won with 18% per annum from February 12, 2004 to May 31, 2005, and 15% per annum from the next day to September 10, 2007, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment." The above ruling became final and conclusive around that time.

The Plaintiff’s claim against C is KRW 107,314,39 as of November 10, 2014.

B. C was residing in E apartment Nos. 308-dong 803 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) in Yangju-si from October 19, 2003 to July 23, 2006.

C. The registered matters concerning the apartment of this case are as follows.

(1) The Korea National Housing Corporation completed the registration of initial ownership on June 18, 2001.

SheB completed the registration of transfer of ownership on September 26, 2006 due to the sales contract consisting of 84,500,000 transaction value on August 18, 2006.

Consolidatedly, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on November 13, 2009 due to the sales contract consisting of 140,000,000 transaction value on November 2, 2009.

B is a partner of C, and the defendant is the spouse of C.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. In light of the following: (a) the Plaintiff’s assertion B was 28 years old at the time of the purchase of the instant apartment; (b) his address was F at Yang-si; (c) the family of C had resided in the instant apartment before the purchase of the instant apartment; (d) the fact that B and the Defendant did not seem to have engaged in economic activities; and (e) the Defendant did not have paid the purchase price of the instant apartment to B, the instant apartment is in fact owned by C, and is deemed to have been title trust again by C to the Defendant after having title trust with B.

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원 2019.12.17 2019가단4694

-창원지방법원마산지원 2016.11.10 2016가단102194

-대구지방법원포항지원 2015.04.28 2015가단937

-서울고등법원 2015.06.12 2014나2044855

-서울남부지방법원 2015.02.06 2014가합108066