beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Ulsan Metropolitan City deposited 453,717,660 won of the compensation determined by the Central Land Expropriation Committee as the Defendant on the ground that the Defendant was refusing to receive the compensation, after being incorporated into the Incheon Metropolitan City’s 410 square meters, the 1021 square meters of the same Gu D prior to the same Dong-gu, Ulsan Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant land”) and its ground obstacles into the E Park Creation Project in 2016.
B. Based on the executory decision of this Court 2017 Ghana6323 against F, the Plaintiff: (a) filed a claim amount of KRW 36,059,353, including the principal under the above judgment and the delayed payment from November 13, 191 to September 20, 2017; and (b) filed an application for the seizure and collection order of the seized claim under the attached Form with the Defendant F F, a third debtor, with the Seoul Eastern District Court 2017TTTT146, Nov. 1, 2017 (hereinafter “instant collection order”); (b) issued a seizure and collection order of the seized claim (hereinafter “instant collection order”); and (c) the said order was finalized around that time, and was served to the Defendant around that time.
[Grounds for recognition] The items in Gap evidence 1-1, 2, and Gap evidence 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The Plaintiff, a collection creditor, as to the cause of the Plaintiff’s claim, purchased the instant land from the Defendant, the collection debtor, and paid all the purchase price, but only left the registration title to the Defendant due to the resolution of collateral security, etc., and the actual owner of the instant land is F. F. F. F. A claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to KRW 453,717,660 of compensation for the expropriation of the instant land against the Defendant.
Therefore, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff is liable to pay 36,059,353 won and damages for delay attached according to the collection order of this case among the above claims. Thus, the defendant is the collection obligee as to the existence of the claims subject to seizure in the claim for collection amount, unless there are special circumstances.