If so, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 90,181,500 won and 15% of the annual damages for delay from August 1, 2018 to the day of full payment, which is obviously a day after the delivery of a copy of the complaint in this case.

2. On August 2, 2018, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff’s claim for return of unjust enrichment against the Defendant was extinguished by the repayment of the Plaintiff’s claim, on the ground that the Defendant deposited KRW 90,206,207, including interest in arrears from the Gwangju District Court Decision 2018Da4609, August 2, 2018, by making the Plaintiff as the principal deposit, and KRW 24,707, supra.

Unless there are special circumstances, such as that the deposit for repayment is insufficient in full or in full, the payment for all of the obligation shall be provided and the deposit for part of the obligation shall be made. The creditor shall not have the effect of extinguishing the obligation even with respect to the deposit portion unless the creditor accepts it (Supreme Court Decision 2005Da37208 Decided October 13, 2005). 90,206,207 won deposited by the defendant as the deposit date for payment is less than KRW 90,25,621 (90,181,50,74,121, and less than KRW 49,414) which is the principal and interest of the obligation on August 2, 2018, which is less than KRW 90,25,621, which is the date of the deposit for payment, and even if the shortage is less than KRW 49,414, which is extremely poor compared to the total amount of the obligation of the defendant. Thus, the deposit is valid in accordance with the principle of good faith.

I would like to say.

As such, if the repayment deposit is legitimate, regardless of whether the creditor's claim for the withdrawal of the deposited article was made, the repayment becomes effective and the obligation is extinguished when the deposit is made.

Supreme Court Order 2001Da2846 Decided December 6, 2002 is rhumd.