부당이득금 반환
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. Basic facts
A. On June 30, 2010, C Association (hereinafter “instant union”) borrowed KRW 1.236 million each from D, D, and E (hereinafter “D,” “E,” and collectively referred to as “the lender of the instant case”) (hereinafter “instant loan agreement,” and thereafter, the lender of the instant case’s loan claim (hereinafter “instant loan claim”) and the part of the members of the instant association including the Plaintiff and the Defendant (the contractor of the apartment construction that the instant association and the members of the instant association agreed to newly construct) jointly and severally guaranteed the above loan obligation of the instant union.
B. On June 30, 2010, the Plaintiff, the instant association, and some of its members issued to the instant lender a promissory note with the face value of KRW 3.5 billion, the date of issuance, June 30, 2010, and the due date for payment, in order to secure the above loan obligations of the instant association. As to the said promissory note, a notary public prepared and issued a promissory note No. 82, as to the said Promissory note No. 2010 (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”).
C. Since then, the instant association failed to repay its loan obligations, such as delinquency in payment of interest, etc., the Defendant subrogated to D on September 30, 2010 KRW 1,280,085,471, and KRW 1,281,582,974 in total to E, and KRW 2,561,68,445 in total. The instant lender subrogated to the Defendant for KRW 2,561,668,45 in total among promissorysory note claims based on the instant notarial deed (hereinafter “instant promissory note claim”) and its incidental claim, and then notified the Defendant of the transfer of the said claim.
On December 26, 2011, the Defendant received the succession execution clause within the scope of KRW 2,561,668,445 that was transferred from the instant lender as above from the said lender.
E. Based on this case’s notarial deed, the Defendant issued a collection order against the Plaintiff’s wage claim against the Gwanak-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Facilities Management Corporation.