beta
(영문) 수원지방법원성남지원 2020.11.13 2020가단376

부당이득금

Text

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 260,791,613 and KRW 69,00,000 among them from December 9, 2009 to the day of full payment.

Reasons

1. In full view of the purport of Gap evidence No. 1's argument as to the cause of the claim, the judgment was rendered on November 24, 1999 that "the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 69 million won with 5% per annum from May 10, 1994 to November 24, 1999, and 25% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment," and the above judgment is recognized as finalized on December 29, 1999.

On the other hand, the fact that the Plaintiff received dividends of KRW 495,850 from the auction procedure that was conducted against the Defendant on December 8, 2009 with the enforcement title as the above judgment on December 8, 2009 does not conflict between the parties, and the interest of the lawsuit in the lawsuit is also recognized.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the amount of the above dividend amount of KRW 260,791,613 (=the principal amount of KRW 69,00,000,000 x KRW 191,791,613 won 69,00,000 x [5% x (5% 199/365) x (19/365) x (14/365) - 495,850 won) - 69,000 won, the principal amount of which is the 69,00,000 won from December 9, 2009 to the date of full payment.

2. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant did not make unjust enrichment, such as having not received the successful bid price, and the Defendant also suffered damage, the Defendant alleged that the judgment was erroneous in the above Suwon District Court Decision 98Gahap7687 decided on the unjust enrichment case. However, the grounds alleged by the Defendant were generated prior to the closing of argument in the above judgment which became final and conclusive, and thus, the grounds for the judgment are

On the other hand, the defendant alleged that the plaintiff has received additional payments, but did not submit any evidence to prove it.

Therefore, all of the defendant's arguments are without merit.

3. The claim of this case is the scope of the above recognition.