부당이득금 반환 청구의 소
1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed.
1. Basic facts
A. On January 16, 1992, D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) entered into a credit-limit trading agreement with C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”), and at this time, E jointly and severally guaranteed the debt of C under the above agreement.
(F) The Plaintiff acquired the credit limit transaction agreement and joint and several guarantee agreement on September 18, 2012 through the Korea Asset Management Corporation.
B. As to the registration of the establishment of a mortgage over G forest land of KRW 65,962 square meters (hereinafter “the instant real property”), F completed on February 18, 1992, the establishment of a mortgage over the maximum debt amount of KRW 150,000,000,000,000,000. The Defendant, on March 17, 1992, issued a provisional attachment order of KRW 500,000,000,000 for the claim amount of KRW 92Ka232,00,000,000,000,000,000 in Seoul Civil District Court of Seoul on March 26, 1992 (hereinafter “the provisional attachment order of this case”).
C. From the voluntary auction procedure (the Jeju District Court H; hereinafter “instant auction procedure”) regarding the instant real estate commenced on February 16, 2015, a distribution schedule was formulated that KRW 150 million was distributed to the Defendant, who is the right holder of provisional seizure, with the amount of KRW 249,871,94, the amount to be actually distributed as April 22, 2016, to F, who is the mortgagee, among the amount of KRW 249,871,994, and the remainder of KRW 99,871,994.
D, on March 2, 2016, submitted a claim statement to the effect that “No claim exists based on the decision of provisional seizure of this case” and did not demand a distribution based on the provisional seizure of this case.
E. Meanwhile, in a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution filed by the Defendant as Jeju District Court 2016dan53632, the Defendant’s decision of recommending reconciliation became final and conclusive and conclusive on July 5, 2017, to rectify the amount of dividend to F to be reduced to KRW 75 million, and the amount of dividend to the Defendant was added to KRW 75 million.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 12, and Eul.