logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.09.21 2015가단5292076
부당이득금반환 청구의 소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. B concluded a guarantee insurance agreement between the Plaintiff on March 4, 2010 with the following content.

· Insured amount of insurance coverage: 52,298,750∑ 52: The insurance period of ∑ 52: From March 4, 2010 to April 2, 2012: Guarantee of return of loans to members of the Korean Teachers' Credit Union;

B. On March 4, 2010, the Korean Teachers’ Credit Union filed a claim against the Plaintiff for the payment of insurance proceeds on the ground that the loans were not repaid on March 4, 2010, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 52,298,750 to the Korean Teachers’ Credit Union on November 11, 201.

C. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking reimbursement against B with the Seoul Central District Court 2013da5050131, and on May 30, 2013, the said court rendered a judgment that “B shall pay to the Plaintiff 53,330,390 won and 52,298,750 won among them, 15% per annum from February 10, 2012 to May 10, 2013, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.” The said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

On the other hand, on January 28, 2010, the defendant filed an application for the attachment and assignment order of claims with the Suwon District Court 2010TTT1593 on the basis of the executory exemplification of the promissory note No. 40, No. 2010, No. 2010, No. 2010, Jan. 29, 201, and the above court issued the attachment and assignment order on January 29, 2010.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant assignment order”). [Grounds for recognition] Gap’s Nos. 1 and 2 (including each number), Gap’s No. 3-2 and Eul’s No. 7, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion is invalid since the claim of promissory note payment, which is the execution bond of the assignment order of this case, is invalid as a conspiracy between the defendant and the defendant, who is not B, as the execution bond of the assignment order of this case, and Eul has a claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the amount received by the defendant in accordance with the assignment order of this case against the defendant, and the defendant is a creditor

arrow