청구이의
1. The plaintiff's claim that was changed in exchange in this court is dismissed.
2. The Plaintiff’s total costs of litigation.
1. Basic facts
A. On Nov. 21, 2002, the Defendant acquired the claim against the Plaintiff by transfer from the Treatment Capital Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Treatment Capital”), and filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for the claim for the acquisition amount under the Seoul Central District Court 2005 Ghana1488351. In this case, “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant the amount of KRW 17,679,839 and the amount of KRW 9,200,00 per annum from May 1, 2005 to the day of full payment” (hereinafter “prior judgment”), and the above judgment became final and conclusive on Jan. 21, 2007 by dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal.
B. On May 13, 2016, the Defendant issued a seizure order against the Plaintiff’s right to claim the transfer registration of ownership and a collection order against the Plaintiff’s right to claim the transfer of ownership as the title of execution, and received dividends of KRW 8,791,521 in the Seoul Southern District Court D distribution procedure D, respectively.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3 and 6 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. Upon the President’s special order to liquidate the Defendant’s non-performing loans, the Defendant handled the Defendant’s discharge of all remaining obligations based on the instant preceding judgment around 2012.
Nevertheless, the Defendant received 8,791,521 won from the Seoul Southern District Court D distribution procedure in accordance with the above preceding judgment, and thus, should return it as unjust enrichment.
B. It is not sufficient to acknowledge that the Defendant exempted the Plaintiff from, or exempted the Plaintiff from, the remaining obligations based on the previous judgment of this case solely on the evidence Nos. 5 and 7, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.
Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit without further review.
3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim that was changed in exchange in this court is dismissed as it is without merit.