2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The defendant of the Gu office shall pay to the plaintiff 37,923,264 won with 20% interest per annum from the next day of the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment.

A. On November 12, 2012, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 000,000 to the bank account (Account Number 230-114213-01-011, hereinafter referred to as “instant account”) by mistake without any cause * BB’s account transfer.

B. On September 3, 2012, the Defendant’s head of the tax office attached the seized bond amount of KRW 000,000, and the amount to be deposited in the account held by BB, including the amount to be deposited in the present and in the future, as well as the amount to be deposited in the future, and the BB attached the claim to return the deposit of the instant account held in the Bank*** on September 4, 2012, and the notice of the above seizure was issued to the Bank * on September 4, 2012. The balance of the instant account was KRW 00,000, and thereafter the Plaintiff transferred the bond amount of KRW 000 to the instant account. On November 12, 2012, the Defendant’s head of the tax office collected on June 19, 2013 the entire balance of the instant bond account at the time of the instant seizure.

D. Meanwhile, on the other hand, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking the return of KRW 0000,000, which was remitted by mistake against BB (U.S. District Court Decision 2013Dadan24153). On April 30, 2014, the Plaintiff rendered a favorable judgment with the purport that BB would pay to the Plaintiff KRW 37,923,264 and damages for delay, which became final and conclusive around that time.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that since the defendant collected KRW 000 from the bank account of BB, the defendant is obligated to pay KRW 000 and delay damages to the plaintiff.

B. Determination

Although there is no legal relationship between the transferor and the payee as the cause of the account transfer transfer, when the payee acquires a deposit claim equivalent to the amount of the account transfer by account transfer, the transferor is merely entitled to claim the return of unjust enrichment from the recipient, and it is not entitled to prevent the transfer of the above deposit claim. Thus, it is not possible for the payee's creditor to seek non-permission of compulsory execution against the above deposit claim (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da69746, Dec. 10, 2009). Furthermore, it is determined by whether the claim under the seizure order includes the future deposit claim to be deposited in the debtor's account after the seizure order includes the deposit claim, and this is in principle determined by the interpretation of the wording stated in the "Indication of the claim to be seized immediately," which is stated in the notice of the above transfer order * the defendant's deposit claim's notice prior to the seizure order * as stated in the notice of claim transfer * as stated in the notice of claim transfer * as stated in the above notice of claim transfer * as mentioned in the above before the plaintiff's deposit claim transfer.

Therefore, since collection of the defendant's account of this case is justifiable, the plaintiff's assertion that is premised on the defendant's unjust enrichment is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.