logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원남원지원 2016.06.08 2015가단2417
부당이득금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. C, D, E, and F completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of sale on April 10, 1970 with respect to one-fourth of each of the 3,479m2 in Masung-gun G (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. On May 2, 191, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer based on sale on April 26, 1991 with respect to C and D’s share out of the instant land.

C. On July 18, 2007, the Gisung-gun acquired the instant land through consultation pursuant to the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects, and completed the registration of ownership transfer based on such agreement on August 7, 2007.

On Aug. 23, 2007, Y paid KRW 65,640,00 for the land of this case to the above E, and the above E had H manage the passbook in which the above compensation was made. The Defendant sought the above H and the above compensation claimed that 1/2 of the compensation was his money, and the above H paid KRW 32,820,00, which is equivalent to 1/2 of the above compensation, on March 7, 2008.

E. On March 2, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking the return of the above compensation that was paid by the Defendant on the ground that the share of 1/2 in the instant land was owned by the Plaintiff and was entrusted to the Defendant only in its registration name (Seoul District Court Branch Branch Decision 2010Da539), but the judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on September 15, 2010 on the ground that the Plaintiff’s lack of proof of the title trust relationship asserted by the Plaintiff was rendered.

Although the Plaintiff appealed against the above judgment (the Jeonju District Court 2010Na7686), on February 18, 2011, the dismissal judgment was rendered on March 15, 201, on the ground that the said lawsuit constituted a lawsuit brought without a resolution of a legitimate clan general meeting of the Plaintiff, and the said judgment became final and conclusive as it was.

F. Accordingly, the Plaintiff, on July 4, 2015, decided to hold an extraordinary general meeting and again file a lawsuit seeking the return of the said compensation with the Defendant with the consent of all 17 members of the Plaintiff clan, and thereafter, on August 18, 2015.

arrow