In case of remittance by mistake, the transferor is limited to the right to claim the return of unjust enrichment, and it does not acquire the right to block the transfer of deposit claims.

In a case where an addressee acquires a deposit claim equivalent to the amount of the account transfer due to erroneous account transfer by the account transfer requester, the account transfer requester is limited to holding a claim for return of unjust enrichment against the addressee, and it is not acquired a right to block the transfer of the above deposit claim. Thus, it is not possible for the addressee’s creditor to seek non-permission of compulsory execution against the above deposit claim.

Article 24 of the National Tax Collection Act

2015Guhap23726

○ ○

○ Head of tax office

November 25, 2015

December 23, 2015

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

Of the bank account (Account Number: 00-00-0000) opened in the name of AB bank account in the name of BB bank, the Plaintiff’s claim to return the deposit amount of KRW 11,00,000 remitted on July 31, 2014 is confirmed that the attachment disposition by the Defendant 00 Corporation on April 3, 2014 and the attachment disposition by the head of Seogu Tax Office on June 20, 2013 by the Defendant 0 Daegu Tax Office is invalid.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On July 31, 2014, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 11,000,000 to the bank account (Account Number: 000-00-0000) of AAB bank by mistake.

B. However, as to the deposit claims against the bank account of the AA in the above BB bank, the head of the Seocho-gu Tax Office: (a) on June 20, 2013, the sum of the value-added tax in arrears is KRW 21,391,150 as the claim amount; (b) notified the BB bank on June 21, 2013; and (c) on April 3, 2014, Defendant 00: (a) seized the claim including the amount of future deposits within the scope of the claim amount; and (b) notified the BB bank on April 4, 2014 (hereinafter “instant attachment disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit for return of unjust enrichment of KRW 11,00,000, which remitted money to AA by mistake (Supreme Court Decision 00 District Court Decision 2014Da3000) and the judgment rendered on March 18, 2015, which became final and conclusive around that time.

D. Based on the above final judgment, the Plaintiff applied for a seizure and collection order on June 8, 2015 with respect to the deposit claim of KRW 12,145,205 against AB bank as 00 District Court 00 Branch 00,000, for the claim of KRW 12,145,205.

E. Accordingly, the Plaintiff requested debt collection to BB bank, but the claim collection was not made on the ground that AA’s deposit claims were subject to the instant attachment disposition.

Facts that there is no dispute over recognition, the purport of the whole pleading.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Although it is apparent that the Plaintiff’s transfer of KRW 11,00,000 to the BB bank account of AA is the Plaintiff’s ownership, the Defendants seized the transfer by deeming it as a responsible property of AA. As such, the instant attachment disposition is null and void.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Account transfer is a means of safe and prompt transfer of funds between banks and bank stores through the remittance procedure. For the smooth handling of large amount of funds between many people, it is a system under which a bank acting as a intermediary performs such act without involvement in the existence of legal relations, which are the cause of the transfer of each fund. Therefore, in a case where a bank is transferred in cash or account transfer, it is limited to the basic terms and conditions of deposit transaction that it becomes a deposit when it enters into a ledger of deposit, and there is no separate agreement between the payee and the bank, and it shall be determined whether there exists legal relations, which is the cause of account transfer between the payee and the bank. 20. 6. 7. 6. 7. 6. 206. 6. 7. 6. 706. 6. 606. 206. 206. 7. 606. 7. 60. 206. 206. 3. 3. 206. 3. 6. 7. 206. 3 of account transfer claim between the payee and the account transfer claim.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed in its entirety as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.