Ansan-2014-Gaba-37057 ( October 16, 2015)

It cannot be deemed unjust to collect money deposited in the passbook in the name of a third party by mistake.

Money transferred by a remitter to the bank account of the payee is unjust because the money transferred by the remitter is owned by the payee immediately, regardless of whether there is any legal ground for the transfer, and it cannot be deemed unjust to collect the money deposited in the payee's account.

Article 741 of the Civil Act: Contents of Unjust Enrichment

Suwon District Court 2015Na23816 Demurrer

AA

Korea

May 12, 2016

June 23, 2016

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall be KRW 37,923,264 and the complaint of this case against the plaintiff.

The amount of money shall be paid at the rate of 20% per annum from the day after the delivery date of the duplicate to the day of full payment.

1. Determination as to the defendant's defense prior to the merits

The defendant paid to the plaintiff in error in the bank account of BB, a corporation without any legal ground.

upon collection order, the Defendant collected the money by virtue of the collection order with BB as the debtor;

As above, it is reasonable that the money remitted by mistake without any legal ground is still owned by the plaintiff.

Ga. The defendant asserts that he has the obligation to return it to the plaintiff, and sought the payment of that amount.

As to the lawsuit of this case, a third party objection lawsuit can only be brought before the completion of compulsory execution.

As long as the defendant completed the compulsory execution procedure based on the collection order, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is unlawful.

this paper argues that there is no defense to the contrary.

Therefore, the lawsuit of demurrer against the third party is owned by the third party for the subject matter of compulsory execution.

claim that there is an objection, or has a right to prevent the transfer or delivery of an object;

Any action claiming an objection against a compulsory execution that would be prejudicial to, and seeking an exclusion from, the enforcement, such action

(1) The plaintiff is entitled to refuse compulsory execution on the subject matter, and the plaintiff is entitled to do so

When submitting a complaint, the name was written as "an action of demurrer against a third party", but the purport of the claim is original.

not seeking non-permission of compulsory execution against the object owned by it, but also against the defendant

c) payment of the amount equivalent to the money deposited by the plaintiff to the bank account of BB;

(2) The court below held that the money deposited as above is deposited without any legal ground.

The plaintiff's ownership is still asserted as the plaintiff's ownership, and the return is sought.

Unlike the name of the plaintiff stated in the complaint, a claim for monetary payment must be deemed to be a lawsuit.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion that the substantial content of the lawsuit in this case is a lawsuit of demurrer against a third party.

The defense prior to the merits is without merit.

2. Quotation of the reasons for the judgment of the first instance;

(1) Although there is no legal relationship that causes transfer between a transfer requester and an addressee, when an addressee acquires a deposit claim equivalent to the amount of money transferred by account transfer, the transfer requester is limited to holding a claim for return of unjust enrichment of the above amount against the payee, and the transfer requester does not acquire a right to prevent transfer of the above deposit claim. Thus, it is not possible to seek non-permission of compulsory execution against the above deposit claim by the obligee of the payee (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da69746, Dec. 10, 2009). In addition, it is determined by whether the seizure of claims include a deposit claim to be deposited in the debtor's account in the future, and it is in principle determined by the interpretation of the language and text stated in "the indication of a claim to be seized" (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da47117, Oct. 25, 2012).

In light of the above legal principles, as seen earlier, so long as BB acquired a deposit claim equivalent to the above erroneously transferred money from the Plaintiff’s error transfer to CCC bank, the above deposit claim takes effect on the Defendant’s OO head of the tax office notified before CCC bank’s seizure of claims. The Defendant’s OO head of the tax office stated “the amount until the date of arrears, including the amount to be deposited in the present and future,” in the indication column for seizure of the Defendant’s OO head of the tax office’s notice of seizure of claims in relation to the account held by BB BB prior to the Plaintiff’s transfer of money to the instant account, the effect of the Defendant’s OO head of the tax office’s seizure of claims extends not only to the balance of the instant account at the time of arrival of the above notice of seizure of claims, but also to the money transferred by the Plaintiff to the instant account after that. Therefore, the collection of the Defendant’s account is justifiable, and the Plaintiff’s assertion based on the Defendant’s unjust enrichment

3. Determination on addition

A. The plaintiff, as a matter of course, where the creditor executes the property owned by a third party, the third party.

It can be avoided, and in exceptional cases of account transfer, it must not be at a low cost.

and, because of the unique nature of the special means to move funds promptly, the remitter shall take the place.

in case of a transfer of funds to the payee’s deposit account, the legal relationship as the cause of the transfer of funds exists.

a deposit contract equivalent to the amount of money deposited between the payee and the receiving bank regardless of whether the deposit contract is re-established

the insured shall be deemed to have been subject to compulsory execution of the amount equivalent to the

and after the transfer of money by mistake by the remitter, without delay by the bank or the addressee.

If the holder notifies that there is no legal ground for the transfer of funds, such exception shall be admitted.

shall not be deemed to be the money of the remitter, as the principle requires, the amount without legal cause.

Based on the premise that the Plaintiff is entitled to a collection procedure, the Plaintiff had already taken place with the CCC Bank prior to the Defendant’s proceeding.

Since the plaintiff notified Gohap that it was a account transfer due to mistake without any legal ground, the plaintiff corporation

BB’s deposit account, and then the Defendant collected KRW 37,923,264, which the Defendant collected, is the Plaintiff’s money, and accordingly, the Defendant should return the said KRW 37,923,264 to the Plaintiff and the delay damages.

Therefore, the possession of money as a special movable is the title of possession at all times.

and accordingly, the recipient to whom the possession of money has been delivered is the owner of the money as a matter of course.

money transferred by the remitter to the receiver's deposit account, and the money transferred by the remitter to the receiver's deposit account is legal

(1) whether the transfer is a person, whether or not, shall be immediately owned by the recipient and automatically as such.

to the extent that the deposit contract is established between the receiving bank and the addressee, the special nature of the goods

(2) If the Plaintiff’s claim is justified, the Plaintiff’s claim that the Plaintiff

Does there be exceptional ownership relationship or exceptional cases due to the unique nature of the account transfer.

Since it is not a contractual relationship recognized as such, the receiving bank or the receiving bank after transferring the money by the remitter; or

The ownership of the transferred money by reason of the filing of an objection against the obligee of the payee;

There is no deposit contract between the receiver and the receiving bank, or between the receiver and the receiving bank.

Therefore, even if it is recognized that the Plaintiff knew the Defendant that he transferred the money without any legal cause, the transferred money cannot be deemed as still owned by the Plaintiff, so the Plaintiff’s assertion on a different premise cannot be accepted.

B. The Plaintiff transferred money to the account of this case to the CCC and the Defendant for long time.

Money transferred to the account of this case by mistake without any legal ground at the district tax office under its jurisdiction.

Since it was known that the transfer was made, approximately six months have passed since the date of transfer to the account of this case.

The defendant's act of collecting the total amount of deposits, or the act of the CCC bank that allowed such collection, constitutes abuse of rights and violates the good faith principle, so there is no validity. Accordingly, the defendant asserts that the defendant should return to the plaintiff the amount of 37,923,264 won which the plaintiff paid by mistake and the damages for delay.

Therefore, the plaintiff, at the CCC Bank and the district tax office affiliated with the defendant, shall be subject to this investigation.

It was known that the money transferred to the savings account was transferred by mistake without any legal ground.

In addition, there is no evidence to prove such fact, and even if so, there is no time to know such fact.

seizure and prosecution of the claim to return the deposit in the account of this case after the lapse of the period

even if the money deposited in the account of this case under the order of this court was collected, this shall not apply.

The plaintiff cannot be viewed as an abuse of rights or a violation of the good faith principle.

The above assertion also cannot be accepted.

4. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance shall be dismissed.

As above, the plaintiff's appeal is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.

this decision is delivered with the judgment of the court below.