체납자의 예금통장으로 착오송금한 금원에 대하여 압류권자보다 우선하여 배당받을 수 없음[국승]
The amount erroneously remittanced by a delinquent taxpayer's deposit passbook shall not be distributed in preference to a seizure right holder.
Since the amount of error remittance with the deposit passbook of a delinquent taxpayer is merely a claim for return of unjust enrichment to the title-holder of the deposit account, it cannot be distributed preferentially to the plaintiff who is a seizure authority.
Seoul Central District Court 2015Kadan197923 Demurrer against distribution
KimA
Korea
May 12, 2016
June 9, 2016
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Cheong-gu Office
Of the distribution schedule prepared by the same court on October 00, 2015 with respect to the distribution procedure case of Seoul Central District Court 2015 another 100000 won, the amount of dividends to the Defendant is KRW 100,000,000, and the Plaintiff’s dividend amount is changed to KRW 1,000,000, respectively.
1. The plaintiff's assertion
The Plaintiff, by mistake, remitted money to the account in the name of ParkB in the name of ParkB that the Plaintiff should transfer to Kim 00,000 won to the Plaintiff, the ownership of the △△△△ that the Plaintiff erroneously remitted to Kim, and the Defendant’s dividends that the △△△△△ was erroneously distributed to the Defendant, and thus, the distribution schedule should be modified.
2. Determination
Account transfer is a means for safe and prompt transfer of funds between banks and bank stores through the remittance procedure. For smooth handling of large amount of funds transfer between many people, a bank acting as a broker without involvement in the existence and content of legal relations, which are the cause of the transfer of funds. Therefore, in cases of cash transfer or account transfer, it is limited to the basic terms and conditions of deposit transactions that serve as a deposit when deposit is recorded in the ledger of deposit transactions. Unless there exist special circumstances, such as the existence of legal relations, which are the cause of account transfer between the remitter and the bank, the remitter and the bank. Thus, if the remitter transferred the account to the bank of the payee, regardless of whether there exists legal relations between the remitter and the bank, a deposit contract equivalent to the amount of account transfer should be established between the payee and the bank transaction, and it cannot be interpreted that the payee’s right to claim deposit in the above amount should be exercised against the bank (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Da3679, Apr. 27, 2007). 206.
Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, the fact that the Plaintiff sent KRW 1 million to the Industrial Bank of Korea in the name of ParkB on October 0, 2014 is no dispute between the parties to the instant case. However, when money is transferred to the financial account under the name of ParkB, the deposit contract between ParkB and the Industrial Bank of Korea was concluded between the recipient, and thereby the said ParkB acquired the deposit claim against the bank. The Plaintiff is merely entitled to claim for return of unjust enrichment against ParkB.
Ultimately, as long as the Defendant is a seizure authority following lawful disposition on default, the Defendant’s national tax claims against ParkB should take precedence over the Plaintiff’s claim for return of unjust enrichment against ParkB in the distribution procedure. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff has ownership or priority is difficult to accept.
3. Conclusion
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is without merit, and it is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.