beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim added in the trial are all dismissed.
2. After an appeal is filed.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is the same as the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the addition of the judgment as stated in paragraph (2). Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the
(The findings and judgments of the first instance court are not different, even considering the allegations and evidence added at the trial. 2. Determination of the conjunctive claim
A. If the Plaintiff’s assertion, if the agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the 2,235 square meters prior to Kimhae-si falls under a title trust agreement and becomes null and void, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 70,479,800 paid by the Plaintiff to purchase the said land, which is calculated by unjust enrichment of KRW 70,479,80 from September 23, 2005 to October 18, 2015, the amount of KRW 5% per annum from the next day to the day of delivery of the application for change of claim and cause of claim, and the amount of money calculated by 15% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.
B. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire pleadings as to the entries in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the Plaintiff and the Defendant, by investing half of the purchase fund, purchased the above land in the name of the Defendant, and sold it to other parties and divided the profits therefrom, and pursuant to the above agreement, the fact that the ownership transfer registration is completed by purchasing the above land in the name of the Defendant pursuant to the above agreement. In light of this, the Defendant is merely liable to acquire the ownership of the above land pursuant to the above agreement and pay half of the profits to the Plaintiff after disposing of the above land, and it is difficult to recognize that the Plaintiff entered into a title trust agreement with the Defendant to hold the ownership of 1/2 of the above land, and there is no evidence to prove otherwise
Therefore, the above agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant is null and void as a title trust agreement.