The plaintiff's assertion is dismissed because the error remittance alone cannot be asserted against the seizure of Korea.

The error remittance alone does not oppose the seizure of the Republic of Korea to the deposit account in the name of the defendant. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion is dismissed, and the defendant shall pay the amount and interest that have been erroneously remitted to the plaintiff.

2011dan348426 Return, etc. of unjust enrichment

AAAAAAAA corporation

BBBBBBBB, Korea;

March 16, 2012

April 6, 2012

1. Defendant BBBBB Co., Ltd. shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount calculated by applying the rate of 5% per annum to the Plaintiff at the rate of 0% per annum to the Plaintiff from September 9, 2011 until the date of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant Republic of Korea is dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant BBBBBBB corporation is divided by the above Defendant, and the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant and the Defendant Korea is assessed against the Plaintiff.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

Upon the request of the collection on December 1, 2010, to Defendant BBBBB corporation and Defendant BBBB corporation of the Republic of Korea, the collection execution against the OOB shall not be allowed, among deposits deposited in Defendant BBBBBB corporation, which is a deposit account of Defendant BBBBB corporation.

1. Claim against Defendant BBBBBB Corporation

(a)the basis for the request;

The reasons for the attached Form shall be as shown in the attached Form.

(b) Judgment on deemed confession: Article 208 (3) 2 of the Civil Procedure Act;

2. Claim against Defendant Republic of Korea

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff, as a result of the employee’s actual account, erroneously forwarded OBBBB to the new bank account in the name of Defendant BBBBB, and the account is the deposit account already attached by the National Tax Service under the jurisdiction of the Republic of Korea and thus, it is impossible to return the erroneously transferred OB. Therefore, the Plaintiff sought a judgment such as the entries in the claim for compensation.

B. Determination

In the case of a bank transfer, which is a kind of account transfer system, which creates the effect of receiving cash through a bank account transfer without direct cash transfer, the deposit relationship between the recipient and the receiving bank is established when the funds are transferred to the account of the recipient through the bank and the receiving bank according to the account transfer instruction by the account transfer requester. Although the legal relationship causing the account transfer between the account transfer requester and the receiving bank was not established from the beginning or even if the legal relationship between the account transfer requester and the recipient was extinguished for a certain reason after the fact, barring any special circumstance, the defect in such cause does not affect the validity of the account transfer (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da59673, Mar. 24, 2006). In light of such legal principle, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the error transfer alleged by the Plaintiff cannot be asserted against the deposit account transfer in the name of Defendant BBBBBB corporation in the Republic of Korea.

3. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant BBBBBBB corporation and the defendant

It is so decided as per Disposition, on the ground that the claim against the private country is groundless.