beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. (1) On December 8, 2011, the Defendant filed a lawsuit seeking the delivery of a building and the return of unjust enrichment on the ground that the Plaintiff arbitrarily occupied the building located in the wife population C, which is owned by the Defendant (U.S. District Court Decision 2011Da92417), and the said lawsuit was proceeded by public notice on the grounds that the Plaintiff’s address is unknown, and the Defendant rendered a full favorable judgment (hereinafter “instant judgment”) on May 11, 2012.
(2) On August 23, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a subsequent appeal against the instant judgment (U.S. District Court 2012Na39995), and rendered a judgment revoking the lower judgment and dismissing the Defendant’s claim.
B. (1) Around February 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application for provisional attachment against D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”), the representative director, and deposited KRW 93 million as collateral (hereinafter “instant deposit”) on February 10, 2012 upon receipt of an order to provide collateral on February 16, 2012.
(2) According to the instant judgment on June 21, 2012, the Defendant received a seizure and collection order against the Plaintiff’s right to claim the above deposit (U.S. District Court 2012TTTTT13546), and applied for the cancellation of security due to D’s consent (Seoul Central District Court 2012Kadan6620). Upon receipt of a decision to revoke security on October 8, 2012, the Defendant received the said KRW 93 million deposited by the Plaintiff on October 15, 2012.
C. The Plaintiff filed a complaint with the purport that the Defendant, who did not have the right to claim the return of unjust enrichment against the Plaintiff, was served to the address where the Plaintiff did not reside even though he knew of the Plaintiff’s office, thereby deceiving the court by deceiving the deposit, but was subject to a disposition on January 10, 2013.
(The grounds for recognition) The fact that there is no dispute over the Seoul Central District Public Prosecutor's Office's punishment No. 109715, 2012 / [the grounds for recognition], Gap's 1 through 7, Eul's 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. The plaintiff's primary claim is determined.