부당이득금반환
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The facts below the basis of the facts are either in dispute between the parties or in accordance with Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, taking into account the overall purport of the arguments.
A. On the basis of an executory exemplification of notarial deeds, No. 5612, 190, prepared by the joint office of a notary public, the Defendant received on April 19, 1993 the order of seizure and assignment for the remainder claim against the Plaintiff for the F apartment in Msan City. The above attachment and assignment order became final and conclusive around that time.
(hereinafter, this case's seizure and assignment order). B
On November 30, 2001, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for the claim for full payment amounting to the Changwon District Court 2001Gahap7544, and the above court decided on July 25, 2003 that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant 58,740,000 won, and the amount calculated by the rate of 5% per annum from August 13, 1993 to May 31, 2003, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment,” and the above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.
C. On April 21, 2004, the Defendant received a compulsory decision to sell the F apartment No. 206 (hereinafter “instant commercial building”) from the Changwon District Court G, Changwon-si, the first floor of the F apartment No. 206 (hereinafter “F apartment No. 1”) owned by the Plaintiff, and the above court rendered a decision to permit the sale of the instant case at KRW 65 million to the Defendant on December 8, 2004.
On March 11, 2005, the registration of ownership transfer was completed due to a compulsory sale by official auction in the future of the defendant on the commercial building of this case.
2. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The instant attachment and assignment order was null and void because the Plaintiff did not have a debt against Japanese Construction Co., Ltd.., and thus, the instant attachment and assignment order constitutes a case where there is no claim subject to seizure. Therefore, the Defendant’s payment of the money distributed pursuant to the invalidation assignment order is unjust enrichment and ought to be returned. 2) The Plaintiff paid KRW 45 million to the Defendant on April 18, 2005, when the procedure for the compulsory auction of real estate was in progress at Changwon District Court
Nevertheless, there is a need to do so.