beta
Text
1. Of the instant lawsuits, the filing of a claim against the judgment on the case No. 2014Kadan43960 decided April 15, 2016 by the District Court of the Republic of Korea.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On April 15, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit of demurrer against D (Korean Government District Court Decision 2014Da43960), and on April 15, 2016, rendered a judgment that “The part of the Plaintiff’s claim for the confirmation of the existence of the obligation among the Plaintiff’s lawsuit is dismissed. A compulsory execution based on the No. 70 of the No. 70 of the No. 2014, Jan. 21, 2014 (hereinafter “No. 46,972,459 won and the part exceeding the amount calculated at a rate of 30% per annum from July 31, 2014 to the date of full payment” (hereinafter “D’s claim based on this judgment”).
B. On May 31, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against D’s son to return unjust enrichment (Korean Government District Court Decision 2015Kadan28685). On August 31, 2017, the judgment that “The Defendant (F) paid to the Plaintiff 91,403,710 won with 5% per annum from August 22, 2015 to May 31, 2017, and 15% per annum from the following day to the day of full payment” (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s claim”).
C. A deceased, Defendant B is a child of Defendant D, and Defendant B solely succeeded to D’s claims through the division of inherited property.
On June 29, 2018, Defendant B received dividends of KRW 9,392,426 on the basis of D’s claims in the distribution procedure of G District Court G District.
[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4 and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Despite the fact that the actual lender of the Plaintiff’s loan to the Plaintiff’s assertion was F, the instant notarial deed was prepared with D as the obligee.
However, in the lawsuit filed by the Plaintiff against F, the Plaintiff’s debt to F was fully paid, and it was found that the amount of KRW 91,403,710 was paid in excess, and thus, the Defendant’s District Court 2014Kadan43960 decided on the ground that compulsory execution was denied.
In addition, D claims have been fully satisfied.