부당이득금반환
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On May 10, 2002, the defendant, at the plaintiff's recommendation, awarded a successful bid of 62 million won in a voluntary auction procedure and completed the registration of ownership transfer on May 16, 2002.
The defendant entered into a sales contract to sell the real estate of this case to D on February 5, 2003, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on April 11, 2003.
B. The Plaintiff, at No. 3526 of 2002, drafted a notarial deed on promissory notes with face value of 35 million won, by a notary public to the Defendant.
Based on the above notarial deed, the defendant applied for the seizure and collection order against the plaintiff's benefit as Seoul Northern District Court 2002TTT 3763, and received the seizure and collection order on December 9, 2002.
C. The Plaintiff, at No. 688 of 2003, signed a notarial deed on promissory notes with a face value of KRW 60 million by a notary public to the Defendant.
Based on the above notarial deed, the defendant applied for the seizure and collection order against the plaintiff's benefit by Seoul Northern District Court 2003TTT879, and received the seizure and collection order on March 13, 2003.
On December 17, 2007, in Seoul Northern District Court E-distribution Procedure, the distribution schedule was prepared to distribute the amount of KRW 2,541,643 (2002TTT 3673) and KRW 4,357,101 (2003TT 879) to the Defendant based on the seizure and collection order of each of the above claims. On December 24, 2007, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit of demurrer to distribution with the Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2007Ga74819 on December 24, 2007.
The lawsuit of demurrer against distribution was concluded on December 26, 2007 as withdrawal of the lawsuit, and the defendant received the dividend.
E. The Plaintiff and the Defendant purported that on January 10, 2008, “Seoul Northern District Court 2007da73847 case, and withdrawal of the seizure and collection order of the 2003TTTT 879 and 2002TT 3673 from the same court, and subsequent seizure and lawsuit shall not be filed against the relevant case.”