The instant lawsuit is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 10, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking the return of unjust enrichment with Jeonju District Court Decision 2019Da44834, the Plaintiff received a decision of performance recommendation (hereinafter “decision of performance recommendation of this case”) that “The Defendant (E) shall pay to the Plaintiff 2,376,000 won a year from August 21, 2019 to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint, 5% a year from August 21, 2019 to the delivery date of the copy of the complaint, and 12% a year from the next day to the date of complete payment.” The Plaintiff received a decision of performance recommendation (hereinafter “decision of performance recommendation of this case”), and upon the final decision, received a seizure and collection order of claims on March 25, 2020 with respect to the deposit claims against the EDCF bank under the Jeonju District Court Decision 2020Da1251, Mar. 27, 2020.

B. D Bank served on April 6, 2020 on KRW 2,351,304 as the Jeonju District Court No. 1045 of 2020 as to the deposit debt 2,351,304 as to E (1) the Jeonju District Court No. 2019, Aug. 1, 2016, which made the Defendant as the creditor, served on August 3, 2016 with the order of seizure and collection of claims by Jeonju District Court No. 2016, Aug. 1, 2016.

The deposited money was deposited (hereinafter “the deposit of this case”) by stating the applicable provisions of Article 248(1) of the Civil Execution Act, on the ground that the delivery of the seizure and collection order as stated in the Paragraph is impossible, and the above money cannot be paid.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff intended to pay the price for the goods to F Co., Ltd., but, by mistake, remitted KRW 2,376,00 to the D Bank account, which is the former business partner.

Accordingly, E received the instant recommendation order against E.

Therefore, as the Plaintiff is the actual owner of the instant deposit, the Plaintiff seeks confirmation against the Defendant that the right to pay the instant deposit is the Plaintiff.

3. Ex officio determination as to the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit is made; in a lawsuit for confirmation, there is a benefit of confirmation as a requirement for the protection of rights; and the benefit of confirmation is the Plaintiff’s right or law.