beta
Text
1. With respect to the instant case No. 2016da504342, this Court, with respect to the distribution procedure of this Court B, shall have jurisdiction over February 1, 2016.
Reasons
Ⅰ. Basic facts
1. The claim and obligation between the plaintiff's full degree and the closeness, declaration of offset, seizure and collection order;
A. On August 2014, 2014, Plaintiff Mando Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff Mando”) had KRW 427,483,553 (hereinafter referred to as “instant goods payment claim”) with respect to the supply of automobile parts, which was due date for payment following the supply of automobile parts, around October 19, 2014, and notified Plaintiff Mando on September 17, 2014 after transferring the said claim to Defendant C&M, and ② around September 2014, Plaintiff Mando with respect to the goods payment claim of KRW 184,485,930 (hereinafter referred to as “instant goods payment claim”).
B. As to the money to be repaid to Defendant C&M due to the assignment of assignment of claims for Defendant C&M, Plaintiff Mando paid the money to Defendant C&M by mistake on October 20, 2014, and Plaintiff Mando filed a lawsuit seeking restitution of unjust enrichment (2015Gahap924), which was the Suwon District Court’s horizontal Housing Site Costs 2015Gahap924, to get the said money returned.
On September 9, 2015, the said court rendered a favorable judgment against Plaintiff Man-do with the purport that “The precision shall pay to Plaintiff Man-do 427,483,553 won and interest thereon at the rate of 5% per annum from October 21, 2014 to May 23, 2015, and at the rate of 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.” The said judgment became final and conclusive.
(C) The claim for return of the above unjust enrichment is “the claim for return of unjust enrichment by Plaintiff Mando.”
Plaintiff
Mado notified on October 24, 2014 that “The claim for return of unjust enrichment from Plaintiff Mando and the claim for the purchase price of the goods of this case in the precision of the compatibility of this case are set-off on an equal amount (hereinafter “instant set-off”) and all claims against Plaintiff Mando in the precision by the said set-off have been extinguished.”