The wrongful remittance to the account of the delinquent taxpayer must be returned as unjust enrichment.

In case where a party who has received a judgment on the merits against a lawsuit of demurrer against a distribution files a lawsuit of demurrer against the other party for the return of the amount of dividends established by the judgment on the merits after the judgment became final and conclusive, on the grounds that the said amount of dividends is unjust enrichment, the existence of the right to receive such dividends shall not be asserted differently from the judgment on the merits of the lawsuit of demurrer against

Article 24 of the National Tax Collection Act

2015 Gaba29304 Return of Fraudulent Gains

AABK Co., Ltd.

Korea

on October 16, 2016

on October 2016 20

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Cheong-gu Office

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 61,457,945 and shall pay to the plaintiff the amount from the day immediately after the delivery date of the complaint of this case.

By the day, 15% interest per annum shall be paid.

1. Final judgment of the case of demurrer against distribution (the fact that there has been no dispute, and evidence No. 3);

The Plaintiff: (a) erroneously remitted KRW 110 million to the Korean bank account of BB; (b) filed an application for a payment order against BB seeking the return of the said money; and (c) received a payment order under the O district court OO27,014 tea727. On August 28, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) as the claim amount of KRW 111,645,023, total amount of the claims under the above executory payment order against BB; and (b) received a seizure and collection order against the Korean bank’s deposit claim against BB; (c) the Defendant seized the deposit claim against BB against the Korean bank in arrears (this court 2014T). Our bank deposited KRW 67,988,545,00 on the ground of attachment concurrence, etc.; and (d) D deposit money was executed with the Seoul District Court as the dividend payment order of KRW 101,645,000 on the dividend payment order of KRW 145,1565,267.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution with DD District Court Decision 2014Kadan65362, and sought a change in the distribution schedule to cancel the dividend dividends against the Defendant and distribute it to the Plaintiff. However, as the Defendant is a national tax creditor, the judgment against the Plaintiff became final and conclusive on the ground that it constitutes a senior creditor in the distribution procedure rather than the Plaintiff, a general creditor.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the Plaintiff remitted money to BB by mistake and the distribution procedure was carried out, the Defendant’s taking advantage of the Plaintiff’s actual income, which is a country that should protect the citizens, does not legally protect it, and constitutes an abuse of rights, as it goes against the good faith principle and is obviously contrary to the concept of fairness. Accordingly, the Defendant should return KRW 61,457,945, which received unfair benefit from the Plaintiff.

3. Determination

When a judgment on the merits of a lawsuit of demurrer against a distribution filed by a creditor becomes final and conclusive, res judicata becomes effective in the judgment on the existence of substantive right to receive dividends with respect to the amount of dividends to which an objection had been raised. In a case where the party against the lawsuit of demurrer against a distribution files a lawsuit seeking the return of dividends finalized by the judgment on the merits against the other party on the grounds that the amount of dividends that became final and conclusive by the judgment on the merits was unjust enrichment after the judgment became final and conclusive, the first issue arises in determining whether the existence of right to receive dividends determined in the judgment on the merits of the lawsuit of demurrer against a distribution has been established or not, and the parties cannot make any assertion different from the judgment on the merits of the lawsuit of demurrer against a distribution, and the court may not render any other judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 9Da3501, Jan. 21, 200).

In light of the above legal principles, res judicata of the judgment on the merits against the plaintiff in a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution also functions in the lawsuit of this case where the plaintiff asserts that the amount of dividends of the defendant which became final and conclusive by the judgment is unjust enrichment. Therefore, it cannot be determined differently from the judgment on the merits against the plaintiff, not the plaintiff, that there was a substantive right to receive dividends of the disputed dividend amount. Ultimately, it cannot be deemed that there is no legal ground for the disputed dividend amount to be distributed to the defendant (it cannot be deemed that the payee obtained the deposit claim equivalent to the amount of the account transfer against the bank in the deposit transaction, and the seizure of the deposit claim of BB arising from the plaintiff's erroneous remittance as a national tax creditor is not an abuse of rights against the principle of trust and good faith or the concept of fairness, even if the transfer requester erroneously transferred the

The plaintiff's assertion is without merit.