beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 71,038,260 as well as 5% per annum from December 24, 2013 to April 29, 2015 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff is a clan (hereinafter “Plaintiff clan”) established for the purpose of the trend of the descendants of the 21st century and the management of the clans and the management of the clan properties, and the mutual aid among the clan members. The Defendant was in charge of the financial affairs of the Plaintiff clan from around 2007 to 2013.
B. In the event that the forest divided in the above forest land is referred to as the forest divided in Gangseo-gu Busan Gangseo-gu, Busan, which is registered in the list of the clan properties of the plaintiff clan, the change of ownership and the division about the forest divided in the above forest land are as follows:
May 2, 1929: G (the division of the Plaintiff’s clan H) and I (the Defendant’s husband): on May 2, 1988, the co-ownership of shares 1/2 shares: on April 6, 1995, the entire shares of G to H: on January 15, 1980, the transfer of I’s shares to the Defendant on October 19, 198: on October 31, 200: The above forest is divided into the 4,114 square meters of forest land and J forest land and the 1,341 square meters of land on October 31, 200: the Defendant’s acquisition of shares 3,833 square meters of forest land (hereinafter “the instant forest”): on October 21, 2013, the entire ownership of the instant forest land divided into the 3,833 square meters of forest land and forest land on October 24, 2013 for consultation on December 21, 2013.
C. The Defendant and H received KRW 71,083,260, respectively, as the compensation for accommodation of the instant forest. While H returned the compensation to the Plaintiff’s clan, the Defendant asserted that the instant forest was its own possession and did not refund the compensation.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 4, 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The plaintiff's assertion is that the forest of this case is owned by the plaintiff's clan that held the title trust with the clan members, which is not returned after the defendant received compensation, which is against the plaintiff's clan.