U. S. P. P. L. L. L. L. L. L.S.

The right to claim the payment of the deposit does not exist and le00 can recover the deposit.

Although le00 is only the Defendant’s claim for the withdrawal of the deposit of this case before recovering the deposit of this case.

The withdrawal of the above deposit by seizure of the right is the receipt of the deposited goods without any legal ground.

The depositor is obliged to return unjust enrichment to 00.

Secondly, the Plaintiff’s primary claim for return of unjust enrichment of KRW 70,000,000 against le0.

57,719,360 won of the deposit of this case against the defendant in subrogation of le00 with the preserved bond

In addition, the payment of damages for delay is sought.

m. In addition, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the instant deposit money to be reverted to the Plaintiff.

The above-mentioned 57,719,360 won was derived from profits, and the plaintiff suffered from losses equivalent to the above-mentioned amount, and thus, the defendant

The plaintiff is obligated to return unjust enrichment directly to the plaintiff.

B. Determination

(1) Whether the deposit of this case was made by mistake

㈎ 살피건대, 위에서 본 증거들에 의하여 알 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정 즉, ①

Pap00 received 70,000,000 won from the Plaintiff’s father, Kim 00,000 Dong-gu, Seoul and received 70,000 won from the Plaintiff’s request for the purchase of the road site. ② At the time, le00 won was Kim 00

From the plaintiff, he heard that he would purchase the land in his name, but the Gu

No one shall be known to the withdrawal of the funds, etc., and from No. 300, 000

70,000,000 won was not returned, but Kim 00 filed a complaint against leap 00 on the charge of embezzlement, and leap 00

The plaintiff only testified after being investigated by Kim00 in the course of the investigation and trial of a criminal case against him/her.

(4) The relevant criminal judgment against leap00 also provides that no investigation or testimony has been made;

The victims of KRW 70,00,000 are specified by Kim0, not the Plaintiff, as the victims, and ⑤ leap00

Relevant criminal cases on the ground that the victim has returned the money embezzled, such as deposit, etc.

In light of the fact that the judgment of suspended sentence was rendered, 000, the deposited person at the time of the deposit of this case

It seems that the plaintiff was accurately aware of the Kim 00, not the plaintiff.

㈏ 따라서 갑 제5, 6호증(가지번호 번호)의 각 기재 및 증인 김00의 증언만

in this case, it is not sufficient to recognize that the deposit of le00 was due to the mistake, and the month,

there is no evidence to prove this.

Judgment on the Plaintiff’s primary argument

㈎ 위에서 본 바와 같이 윤00의 이 사건 공탁이 착오로 말미암은 것이 아닌

As long as the defendant's seizure of the right to claim payment of the deposit of this case by Kim 00, the deposited party, is legitimate.

Therefore, the defendant's withdrawal of the deposit money of this case cannot be a legal ground.

(c)

㈏ 따라서 원고가 윤00에 대하여 부당이득반환채권이 있다고 하더라도 윤기

Since the claim for return of unjust enrichment against the defendant against the defendant is not established, the plaintiff's primary argument is about this issue.

shall not be held.

【Judgment on the Plaintiff’s Preliminary Claim

㈎ 무릇 변제공탁의 공탁물출급청구권자는 피공탁자 또는 그 승계인이고 피공

Since the consignee is formally determined by the statement of the deposit certificate, the consignee is a creditor under substantive law.

The right to claim the withdrawal of deposited goods may not be exercised unless the person is designated as the principal (Supreme Court).

See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da67476 Decided August 25, 2006

㈏ 살피건대, 변제공탁인 이 사건 공탁의 피공탁자는 원고가 아닌 김00인바,

The Plaintiff cannot exercise the right to claim the payment of the instant deposit, and the Plaintiff cannot exercise the right to claim the payment of the instant deposit.

Even if the defendant is a creditor under substantive law, as seen above, the defendant seizes and seizes the deposit of this case.

Since the withdrawal cannot be deemed to have been made without legal grounds, the plaintiff's conjunctive assertion also cannot be seen as having been made.

Furthermore, there is no reason to do so without further review.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so ordered as per Disposition.

this decision is rendered.

Judge Gangwon-do Constitution

Law Firm Ratesan, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Attorney Park Jong-hoon, and Kang Tae-sung

The Minister of Justice of the Republic of Korea

The fixed number of the litigation performers;

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

The defendant of the Gu office shall pay to the plaintiff 57,719,360 won with 55% interest per annum from August 19, 2011 to the service date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

A. The Plaintiff’s father, Kim 00 received a request from the Plaintiff, his father, for the purchase of a road site of 356 square meters in the Dong-dong, Dongjak-gu, Seoul. On August 22, 2005, the Plaintiff purchased the above road site of 000 Dong-dong,00-00 and completed the registration of transfer of ownership by purchasing the road of 122 square meters in the Plaintiff’s name and completing the registration of transfer of ownership on the aggregate of 75 square meters in each road site of 356-35, 36, 43, and 48, which was received on December 30, 2005, while the registration of transfer of ownership was not completed, the above road site of 70,000,000 won was kept.

B. Although Kim 00 demanded the refund of KRW 70,000,000 for the purchase price of the above road site, the company operation expenses, etc. were not returned, and Kim 00 filed a complaint of KRW 00 with the charge of embezzlement.

C. Thereafter, 00 won out of the above 70,000,000 won was returned to Kim 00 in cash, and the remaining 56,650,000 won was deposited as the Seoul Central District Court No. 10132 on June 10, 2009 (hereinafter “the deposit of this case”).

D. As above, leap0 was indicted on the charge of embezzlement of KRW 70,000 from the victim Kim 00. On January 13, 2011, the Seoul Central District Court sentenced the suspension of sentence on the grounds that the above embezzlement was returned to the victim. The above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

E. Meanwhile, on September 23, 2009, the Defendant, on the ground that Kim 00 did not pay capital gains tax of KRW 189,514,960, seized the right to claim for withdrawal of the instant deposited money of KRW 56,650,00 on August 19, 201, received KRW 57,719,360 (hereinafter “the instant deposited money”).

[Based on recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence 1 through 6 (including paper numbers), witness Kim 00, le00 each testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) The Plaintiff, through her father Kim 00, requested le00 to purchase a road site, sent the above KRW 70,000,000 to le0 through Kim 00, and was well aware that the Plaintiff was aware that le00 was the buyer and the Plaintiff was responsible for the actual purchase price.

Shebly, 70,000,000 won, which was kept by le00, was owned by the Plaintiff, but le00 mistakenly designates the deposited person of this case as Kim 00, and thus, le00, the deposited person was the deposited person.