The distribution schedule prepared shall be justified.

Even if the plaintiff erroneously remitted money, there is no priority to the dividend.

Article 151 of the Civil House Administrative Court

2016 grouped 56441 Demurrer against distribution

AA

Republic of Korea and 2

September 21, 2016

October 26, 2016

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

Of the distribution schedule prepared by the above court on October 00, 000 with respect to the case of 00 branch court 00,000 another 000 branch court, the dividend amount of the defendant's Republic of Korea is 00,000,000 won (the competent authority 00 tax office 00,000,000 won, the classical tax office 00,000,0000 won, the classical tax office 0,000,000 won, the amount of dividends of the defendant BB, and the amount of dividends of the defendant CCC 0,000,000 won, and the amount of dividends of the plaintiff 0,000,000 won shall be corrected to 0,000,000 won.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 0, 000, the Plaintiff intended to remit the amount of KRW 00,000,000 as the payment for goods to 000,000 as the payment for goods, but by mistake, remitted the said amount to 00-00-00-000 accounts of Y-Y-Y-Y00 (hereinafter “00 bank”).

B. At the time, the deposit claims in the YY bank were separately seized by Defendant BB (Amount of claim KRW 00,000,000), Defendant CCC (amount of claim KRW 00,000,000), and Defendant CCC (amount of claim KRW 00,000,000).

C. On Oct. 0, 000, the Plaintiff attached the deposit claim as of Oct. 0, 000, and transferred it to the attachment on Oct. 0, 000. Among them, additional attachment was made pursuant to the 00-year-old book (amount in arrears 0,000,0520), 00-year-old book (amount in arrears 00,000,000), 00-year-old book (amount in arrears 00,000), 00-year-old book (amount in arrears 0,000,000).

D. On October 0, 000, 000, 000 YY’s deposit amount of 00,000,000 YY’s deposit amount of 00,000 Y’s deposit amount of 00,000 Y0 other 209 Y00 Y00 Y00 Y000 Y00 Y00 Y00 Y00 Y00 Y0,000 Y0 Y0 Y0,000 Y0 Y0 Y0,000 Y0 Y0 Y0,000 Y Y0 Y0,000 YY, DefendantB, and Defendant CCC’s 00,0000 Y0,000 Y0.

E. On the date of the above distribution, the Plaintiff raised an objection to the total amount of dividends against all creditors.

Facts that there is no dispute over recognition, Gap 1 through 12, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Grounds for the claim;

00 The bank's deposit in the Y account is money owned by the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff wrongfully remitted, and the tax office has a duty to take measures to cancel its seizure. Therefore, it should be distributed to the Plaintiff in its entirety.

3. Determination

The account transfer is a means for safe and prompt transfer of funds between banks and bank stores through the remittance procedure. In order to facilitate the smooth handling of large amount of funds transfer between many people, a bank acting as a intermediary without involvement in the existence and contents of legal relations, which are the cause of the transfer of funds. Therefore, in a case where the account transfer or account transfer is made in cash, it is limited to the basic terms and conditions of deposit transaction that it becomes a deposit when the account transfer is recorded with the deposit ledger, and in the absence of special circumstances, it is decided whether there exists legal relations, which are the cause of account transfer between the payee and the bank. In the event that the account transfer requester made a account transfer between the payee and the bank, the account transfer requester does not have legal relations, which are the cause of account transfer, i.e., the account transfer requester and the bank transaction bank, regardless of whether there exists legal relations between the remitter and the payee, and thus, it is interpreted that the payee and the bank have acquired deposit claims equivalent to the above amount. In addition, it is unreasonable to interpret that the account transfer claim was not acquired by the account transfer obligee’s right to claim.

Therefore, as long as the Plaintiff remitted 00,000,000 won to theY’s deposit account was deposited in the deposit ledger of 00 bank, YY acquired the deposit claim, YY merely has the right to claim restitution of unjust enrichment against Y, and it cannot be deemed that the tax office attached the Plaintiff’s deposit, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim against this is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiff's claims against the defendants are dismissed.