2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Cheong-gu Office

Of the distribution schedule prepared by the above court on April 23, 2018, with respect to the distribution procedure case of Suwon District Court 000 another 0000 s. 00000, the amount of dividends to the defendant shall be deleted in KRW 9,909,659, and the dividends shall be corrected to the plaintiff in KRW 9,909,659.

A. On July 25, 2017, the Plaintiff wired KRW 10,000,000 to the Bank account of LL (Account Number 000,000,000, hereinafter referred to as “instant account”) of the past business entity (hereinafter referred to as “the instant remittance”).

B. In relation to the instant wrongful remittance, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against LLL Co., Ltd. seeking the return of unjust enrichment with the court0000 Ghana0000, and the said court’s decision on performance recommendation was finalized on August 22, 2017 upon receipt of the said decision on performance recommendation on August 3, 2017. The Plaintiff, with the title of execution of the said decision on performance recommendation, as the title of execution, obtained a seizure and collection order on January 15, 2018 by designating the debtor as the LLL Co., Ltd. and the third debtor as the Industrial Bank of Korea, as the title of execution.

C. Meanwhile, on May 31, 2017, the Defendant attached the instant deposit claim against the Bank of Korea of LL based on the national tax claim (total value-added tax and additional dues KRW 78,514,310) in arrears by LLL corporation.

D. On April 23, 2018, the Industrial Bank of Korea deposited the balance of the instant account, and the distribution procedure was initiated by Suwon District Court 000,000,000 as to the said deposit (hereinafter “instant distribution procedure”); and on April 23, 2018, the distribution court drafted a distribution schedule that distributes KRW 9,909,659 to the Defendant.

E. The Plaintiff appeared on the date of distribution of the instant distribution procedure, and stated an objection against the whole amount of the dividend to the Defendant, and filed a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution on April 26, 2018.

Facts without any dispute, Gap's 2 through 8, Eul's 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Industrial Bank of Korea’s deposit money was erroneously distributed to the Defendant, even though the Plaintiff was obligated to receive the return from the LLL, based on the instant error remittance, the amount of dividend should be corrected as stated in the purport of the claim.

B. Determination

When a remitter transfers a deposit account to an addressee’s deposit account, regardless of whether there exists any legal relationship between the remitter and the addressee as the cause of the account transfer, a deposit contract equivalent to the amount of the account transfer shall be established between the remitter and the receiving bank. In such cases, where there is no legal relationship between the remitter and the payee as the cause of account transfer, the remitter shall have the right to claim the return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the above amount against the addressee, and as such, he/she does not acquire the right to prevent the transfer of the above deposit claim, it shall not be deemed that the remitter has the right to claim the return of unjust enrichment against the addressee, and thus, he/she may not seek the denial of compulsory execution against the above deposit claim made by the payee (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Da51239, Nov. 29, 2007; 2009Da69746, Dec. 10, 2009).

In light of the above legal principles, as to the instant case, the Plaintiff’s deposit contract between LL and the Industrial Bank of Korea for KRW 10,000,000 as the addressee’s transfer of error in the instant case was established. The LL has a deposit claim equivalent to the above amount against the Industrial Bank of Korea. The Plaintiff has a claim for return of unjust enrichment against LL as to the Plaintiff.

However, as long as the Defendant is a seizure authority based on lawful disposition on default, it is reasonable that the Defendant’s national tax claim against LL in the instant distribution procedure under Article 35 of the Framework Act on National Taxes takes precedence over the Plaintiff’s claim for return of unjust enrichment against LL Co., Ltd., and the dividend court distributes the total amount to be actually distributed to the Defendant, so the Plaintiff’

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.