logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2017.08.25 2016가단253931
부당이득 반환 청구의 소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff’s argument that the cause of the Plaintiff’s claim in this case lies in the Plaintiff’s claim for payment order against the Defendant’s father B, as shown in the attached Form. The Plaintiff asserted that B, on December 10, 2015, purchased the Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Cloan No. 202, 198,000,000 won, and completed the registration of title trust in the Defendant’s future. Therefore, the Plaintiff claimed for return of unjust enrichment by subrogation

2. Determination on the issues of the instant case

A. The fact that the ownership transfer registration was completed on October 14, 2015 with the owner, the Defendant, and the transaction price of KRW 198 million due to the sale on December 10, 2015, by the Seoul Southern District Court’s registration No. 11382, Seoul Southern District Court (hereinafter “Seoul Southern District Court”), as to the instant Carryover, is insolvent. There is no dispute between the parties.

B. The key issue of the instant case asserted that the Plaintiff purchased the instant loan loan B and made a title trust to the Defendant, who is the ASEAN, and the Defendant asserts that the existing lease deposit and mother D, P, P and the Defendant’s income was only purchased as the income of E and the Defendant, but is not a title trust.

C. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments and evidence Nos. 5, Nos. 1 through 11, and 205, Defendant mother D maintained his livelihood with the income of 80 through 1 million won per month on a daily basis after the bankruptcy in 2005, as a teacher of a kindergarten, child-care center, and Defendant was working in modern department store from 2011 to 200,000 won. Defendant’s family members resided in 30,000 won on a deposit basis of 30 million won until 2013, and Defendant and E were employed with 15,00,000 won as the amount of redevelopment compensation was 15,00 won and the total amount of loans of 10,100,000 won by adding the loans of 15,000,000 won to 10,000 won under lessee’s name and 200,000 won for two years, Defendant’s lease and 14,015,01.

arrow