In case where a person who received a favorable judgment in the judgment of the court of first instance withdraws a lawsuit at the appellate court after the enforcement of the lawsuit is completed, whether the amount received based on the original copy of the judgment of the above judgment of the provisional execution constitutes unjust enrichment.

Even if a lawsuit is withdrawn after the judgment of winning the judgment of winning the judgment of winning the judgment of winning the judgment of winning the judgment of winning the above judgment of provisional execution in the first instance court, and the same claim becomes null and void, and again, the claim is not extinguished due to such cause, so if the claim corresponds to the substance of the judgment of winning the judgment of winning the judgment of winning the judgment of provisional execution in the judgment of winning the judgment of winning

Article 741 of the Civil Act, Article 240 of the Civil Procedure Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] 68Da1722 decided Apr. 22, 1969 (Non-resident-I Article 741(1)(2)(2) 1093 Ka 400 Ka 17 ② 28)

Plaintiff

Japan Pharmaceutical & Pharmaceutical Corporation

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 10 million won with the interest rate of 25 percent per annum from July 3, 1983 to the day of full payment.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant and a declaration of provisional execution.

1. In full view of the following facts: Gap evidence 2-1 (mark of trial records of the first instance), evidence 2-2 (Evidence No. 2-1; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 2-2 (certificate of notary public), Eul evidence No. 3-4, evidence No. 6,7-7 of the same evidence No. 8, and the whole purport of the testimony and pleading of the above evidence No. 98, the defendant received 10,000,000 won for separate deposit claims from the Korean Commercial Bank (hereinafter the non-party bank) and received 00,000 won for the above claim against the non-party No. 30,000 won for the return of 80,000 won for separate deposit claims, the defendant's judgment No. 380,0000 won for the above provisional seizure against the non-party 1, 300,000 won for the plaintiff's claim and the provisional seizure No. 4835,1,84,084,5,5, 1,2084,

2. The plaintiff's withdrawal of the lawsuit at the appellate court and the judgment in favor of the defendant in favor of the defendant in favor of the court of first instance became null and void. Accordingly, the defendant's acceptance of the above amount is unjust enrichment, and the defendant shall return it to the plaintiff. As long as the judgment in favor of the court of first instance was just and the execution was completed accordingly, the defendant shall have withdrawn the lawsuit at the appellate court with the plaintiff's consent, knowing that the withdrawal of the lawsuit at the appellate court does not affect the validity of the execution even if the plaintiff withdraws the lawsuit at the appellate court with the plaintiff's consent. Accordingly, even if the favorable judgment in favor of the court of first instance becomes null and void and void, the defendant's claim in favor of the plaintiff in favor of the defendant in favor of the court of first instance is not completely extinguished, and therefore the receipt of the above amount cannot be viewed as unjust enrichment.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion No. 1, No. 2, No. 3-4, and No. 1, No. 2-2, and No. 8-2 without dispute over the establishment of the non-party 1, No. 7-1, No. 7-2, and No. 5-2, and No. 4-1, No. 4-1, No. 7-2, and No. 4-1, No. 5-1, No. 5-2, and No. 9-1, No. 1, No. 9-2, and No. 1, No. 8-2, and No. 1, No. 9-2, No. 1, and No. 9-2, No.

According to the above facts, although the defendant withdrawn the lawsuit after the judgment in favor of the court of first instance on the claim for the check amount, and the judgment in favor of the court of first instance on the above provisional execution becomes null and void and the same claim for the check amount becomes null and void again, the defendant's claim for the check amount of KRW 10,000,000 against the plaintiff does not become null and void due to the same reasons (the plaintiff's arbitrary performance will be effective upon the plaintiff's voluntary performance, and the defendant will remain with the so-called natural obligation, such as the claim for the check amount of KRW 10,00,000 by compulsory execution based on the above claim for the check amount against the plaintiff, and the defendant's receipt of the above amount of KRW 10,00,000 by compulsory execution with respect to the above claim for the check amount with respect to the plaintiff cannot be deemed as unjust enrichment.

3. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case premised on the defendant's receipt of KRW 10,00,000 as above is without merit, and the costs of lawsuit are dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition with the plaintiff's charge who has lost.

Judges Lee Jin-ok (Presiding Judge)