2016Da5863 Unlawful gains

A

Law Firm LLC et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

[Defendant-Appellant] Taewon, Taewon, Taewon-ju, J. J. L.

Law Firm Sung (Law Firm Sung, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Attorney Kim In-soo

B

Seoul High Court Decision 2014Na49335 Decided December 11, 2015

November 9, 2018

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. A civil trial is not binding on the facts established in a judgment on other civil cases, etc., even though it is not binding on the facts established in the judgment on other civil cases, the facts established in the already established civil civil cases shall be valuable evidence unless there are special circumstances. Thus, it cannot be rejected without any reasonable reasons. In particular, the facts that the two previous and previous civil cases are identical to the parties and form the basis of the dispute are identical, but if a new claim can be filed as a result of the difference in the subject matter of lawsuit and does not conflict with the res judicata, it is more likely (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Da92312, 92329, Sept.

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the court below's determination that the plaintiff's use of the building of this case as the education officer of this case is difficult to be deemed as completely separate from the purpose of "C", and the defendant's use of the building of this case as the education officer of this case was conducted on July 7, 2005, which was before the provisional execution of the building of this case, in light of the following facts: (a) most of the funds to acquire each of the real estate of this case were borne by "C", and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff paid interest on the loan while managing the above account under the name of the defendant; (b) since the building of this case was used as an education officer of "L"; and (c) the plaintiff's use of the building of this case as the education officer of this case was in a close relationship with "C"; and (d) it is reasonable to view that each of the real estate of this case was the plaintiff's use of the remaining property or the property of this case as the business owner of this case.

3. However, in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the lower court’s determination is difficult to accept for the following reasons.

A. According to Gap evidence No. 3, Gap evidence No. 34, and Gap evidence No. 36, which was not adopted or rejected by the court below, the plaintiff asserted that he/she is the owner of the building of this case and won a lawsuit seeking the delivery of the building of this case against the defendant, and the above judgment became final and conclusive in the Supreme Court (2014Da444 Decided April 24, 2014). The above judgment recognized that the plaintiff was awarded a successful bid for the building of this case and completed the registration of ownership transfer, and that the loan received under the defendant's name is deemed to be owned by the plaintiff and the plaintiff was not a title trustee. Thus, the above judgment recognized in the above final and conclusive judgment shall be significant evidence in this case, unless there are special circumstances.

B. However, even based on the evidence Nos. 26, 27, and 29, which was adopted by the court below, only the fact that a loan was made in the name of the defendant with respect to the real estate of this case is recognized. Thus, it cannot be viewed as evidence to dismiss the Plaintiff as the owner of the real estate of this case, and further, in light of the records, there is no evidence to reject the facts acknowledged in the final judgment even after examining the records. Nevertheless, the court below’s finding the facts contrary to the above final judgment without reasonable reasons was erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles as to the probative value of the facts recognized in the final judgment of the relevant case, which affected

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

The presiding judge shall keep the record of the Justice

Justices Lee Dong-won

Justices Park Jong-young

Justices Kim Gin-soo