The case holding that although the judgment of the court of the first instance, which declared a provisional execution of a lawsuit claiming a transfer money, was revoked with a payment deposit on the ground of uncertainty of creditor at the court of second instance, it cannot be viewed as unjust enrichment to receive the above payment deposit as a seizure and assignment order according to the judgment of the court

The case holding that where a person who has taken over a construction deposit claims receives a favorable judgment in the first instance court of the lawsuit claiming the transfer payment, but the first instance court was revoked and lost due to the repayment deposit on the ground of the debtor's uncertainty in the second instance, and it received a seizure and an order in whole pursuant to the first instance court decision of the above provisional execution sentence pursuant to the above provisional execution order, it cannot be deemed that the person who has taken over the above construction deposit claims cannot be deemed as benefit without any legal ground

Article 741 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff (Attorney Kim Tae-tae, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and two others

Busan High Court Decision 90Na6064 delivered on May 17, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

With respect to No. 1:

The judgment of the court below is justified in its reasoning that the non-party 1 transferred the claim for the construction cost which the non-party 1 had against the defendant Geumsung Electric Complex Co., Ltd. to the defendant 1 and the defendant 2, and notified the above company by a content-certified mail with a fixed date, as indicated in its reasoning, and the non-party 1 notified the above defendants of the fact that the above claim was falsely transferred to the above defendants, or that he was notified of the transfer of the above claim to the plaintiff to the non-party company, and the evidence consistent with the plaintiff's argument that the consent was obtained was lawfully rejected.

The assertion ultimately is nothing more than finding facts, which are the exclusive authority of the court below, and finding out evidence.

With respect to the second ground:

As duly determined by the court below, Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 participated in the above lawsuit as the intervenor of the defendant Geumsung Electric Complex Co., Ltd. on the ground that they received a favorable judgment in the first instance court, but at the appellate court, the defendant Geumsung Electric Complex Co., Ltd. deposited money KRW 11,508,959 out of the above construction bond claims and its delayed payment damages on the ground that the lawsuit was pending in the first instance court, and the above judgment of the first instance was revoked, and the above Defendants lost against the above Defendants, even though the plaintiff received the above construction bond claims from the above Nonparty 1, and the above Defendants 1 and 2 took over the above construction bond claims with the intention of undermining the plaintiff, on the ground that they received the above construction bond claims by fraudulent transfer and transfer them to the plaintiff, and on the other hand, the defendant 1 and 2 participated in the above lawsuit as the intervenor of the defendant Geumsung Electric Complex Co., Ltd. on the ground that the above repayment deposit was received in the form of voluntary payment, but it cannot be seen that the above Defendant 1 and the above Defendant 2 acquired the above construction bond.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as pointed out.

Upon examining the reasoning of the judgment below, even if the receipt of the deposit money by Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 for the above money constitutes unjust enrichment, it is clear that the judgment of the court below that the plaintiff could not directly claim it against them is assumed, and in light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is erroneous in the purport of the plaintiff's pleading, or the exercise of the right to request the plaintiff's tin

The precedent of a party member is not appropriate in this case. All arguments are groundless.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Yong-sung (Presiding Justice)