2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

A. On October 13, 2011, the director of the Seo-gu Daejeon District Tax Office seized 4 cases of the term deposit account in the name of the non-party company established in the plaintiff on June 11, 2008 (including 000, 000, 000, 0001, and 001) in the name of the non-party company (hereinafter referred to as "non-party company"), and requested the collection of the deposit of this case on October 13, 201, the plaintiff's employees at the behavioral branch office paid 00 won to the defendant after the termination of the deposit of this case on October 21, 201.

B. The instant deposit is not an ordinary term deposit, but an “unregistered term deposit”, and it is not necessary to set up against the obligor such as endorsement, transfer notification, and consent. The instant deposit is not an ordinary term deposit, but an “unregistered term deposit”, and its nature is a complete security with its face value per se and can be transferred freely only with the deposit claim and the instrument itself in an indivisible relationship

C. On October 7, 2003 and January 9, 2004 at the request of the non-party company, the Plaintiff opened the instant deposit and provided the certificate as a security after being issued a defect performance guarantee insurance to the non-partyCC insurance company. However, the Plaintiff kept the certificate in accordance with the agreement between the Plaintiff and the aboveCC insurance company.

D. The Plaintiff requested the Defendant to return the collection amount around December 30, 201, on the ground that the seizure and collection of the instant deposit made by the Defendant was null and void, but the Defendant respondeded to the return of the collection amount on January 11, 2012.

[Reasons for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-14 (including household numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination

According to the above facts, the deposit of this case is not owned by the non-party company but owned by the non-party company, and the defendant seizure and collection of the deposit of this case, which is not owned by the non-party company, which is not owned by the non-party company, and the above seizure and collection are null and void. Therefore, the amount paid by the defendant due to invalid seizure and collection is unjust enrichment without any legal ground, and the defendant must return it to the plaintiff. The defendant, although he knows well that the deposit of this case is provided as security to a third party and it is impossible to seize it, payment to the defendant without disregarding that it constitutes "when it is performed with knowledge that it is not a debt," as provided in Article 742 of the Civil Code, it cannot be claimed that it constitutes "when it is performed with knowledge that it is performed with no debt," and the bad faith in bad faith constitutes "non-party company's non-payment" as a whole subjective concept, and therefore, the plaintiff cannot be found to have paid it to the defendant, but it is difficult to find that the plaintiff paid it to the defendant.

3. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.