beta
Text
1.The judgment of the first instance shall, upon a request for a change in exchange at the trial, be changed as follows:
The defendant.
Reasons
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part is as follows: (a) the “instant real estate” under Section 2, Section 18 of the judgment of the court of first instance is dismissed as “the instant land”; and (b) the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding “the instant land share 900,” and “the instant sales contract (hereinafter “the instant sales contract”) after the “sales contract” under Section 9 of the judgment of the court of first instance; and (c) the same part of the judgment of the court of first instance as “the Defendant died on January 28, 2016, which was the date the judgment of the court of first instance was rendered; and (d) the Defendant was the only heir of the Defendant who was the wife due to the renunciation of inheritance by M, his child, and acquired the Defendant’s lawsuit (hereinafter “the deceased Defendant’s death”). In addition, the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, other than adding “the Defendant’s death,” and cited it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 20 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Determination as to the cause of action
A. The instant sales contract between the Plaintiff and the Deceased was rescinded because the Deceased did not pay the purchase price, and accordingly, the Deceased lost its ownership as to the share of the instant land.
Therefore, since the surplus distributed to the deceased in the auction procedure of this case was acquired without any legal cause, the defendant, the inheritor of the deceased, transferred the right to claim dividends against the plaintiff with unjust enrichment, and is obligated to notify the Republic of Korea of the purport of the above transfer.
B. The execution of a distribution according to the distribution schedule that became final and conclusive does not confirm the right under substantive law. In case where a person liable for receiving a distribution receives a distribution without receiving the distribution, a person who failed to receive the distribution may claim a return of unjust enrichment against the person who received the distribution, regardless of whether the person raised an objection to the distribution or whether the distribution procedure has been established in form.