부당이득금반환
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court Panel Division.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. The distribution court shall deposit the dividend for the creditor of provisional seizure when it executes the distribution in the auction procedure for the real estate, and shall pay the deposit money to the creditor of provisional seizure when the reason for deposit is extinguished due to the final judgment in favor of the creditor, etc.; and
Claims of the creditor of provisional seizure who has ordered payment in the final and conclusive judgment on the merits shall be extinguished at the time the judgment on the merits becomes final and conclusive to the extent that such deposited dividends are appropriated, except in exceptional circumstances
Even if the right to dispose of the bankruptcy estate belongs to the bankruptcy trustee due to the bankruptcy of the debtor after the judgment on the merits becomes final and conclusive, the extinction of the existing claim shall remain effective as it is.
Therefore, while the provisional attachment creditor fails to receive the deposit after the judgment in favor of the principal claim became final and conclusive, even if the bankruptcy trustee pays the deposit on the grounds that the debtor was declared bankrupt, the bankruptcy trustee shall return it to the provisional attachment creditor for whom the judgment in favor of the principal claim becomes final and conclusive.
2.(a)
The court below rejected the Plaintiff’s claim for return of unjust enrichment on the ground that the provisional attachment obligee’s right to claim for return of deposit money belongs to the Defendant, the bankruptcy trustee, even if the payment order of the principal case became final and conclusive prior to the declaration of bankruptcy as long as the obligor was declared bankrupt, even if the provisional attachment obligee’s right to claim for return of deposit money belongs to the Defendant, the bankruptcy trustee, and therefore, the Defendant’s receipt of deposit money is justifiable.
B. Review of the reasoning of the first instance judgment as cited by the lower court and the record reveals the following facts.