In cases where a creditor who acquired the right to be preserved from a creditor of provisional seizure registered prior to the registration of the first decision on commencement of auction failed to clearly explain the fact of acquisition of the claim before the distribution schedule became final and conclusive, and the creditor who participated in the distribution has received dividends by filing a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution, whether the transferee of the claim may seek a return of unjust enrichment against such creditor (affirmative)

In case where the assignee of the claim who has taken over the right to be preserved from the creditor of the provisional seizure registered prior to the registration of the first decision on commencing the auction has been distributed to the creditor of the provisional seizure as the creditor of the provisional seizure failed to vindicate the fact of the acquisition of the claim before the distribution schedule became final and conclusive, and where other creditors participating in the provisional seizure have raised an objection to the distribution against the amount distributed to the creditor of the provisional seizure on the grounds that the other creditors have already been transferred to the transferee of the claim and have already ceased to exist, and the amount distributed to the creditor of the provisional seizure through a lawsuit of demurrer to the distribution

Article 741 of the Civil Act; Articles 148 subparag. 3, 151, 154, 157 and 160(1)2 of the Civil Execution Act

Supreme Court Decision 92Da33251 delivered on July 13, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2238) Supreme Court Decision 94Da57718 delivered on July 28, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 2971) Supreme Court Decision 2006Da39546 Delivered on February 9, 2007 (Gong2007Sang, 433)

Korea Mutual Savings Bank (Law Firm Democratic, Attorneys Yoon Jae-sik et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Bankruptcy Trustee of Korea Securities Corporation

Seoul High Court Decision 2010Na21414 decided October 6, 2010

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. A creditor of the provisional seizure registered prior to the registration of the first decision to commence the auction is naturally in a position to be treated as having made a demand for distribution even if he does not demand a distribution (Article 148 subparagraph 3 of the Civil Execution Act), and a transferee of the claim who has taken over the right to preserve from the creditor of the provisional seizure registered prior to the registration of the first decision to commence the auction from the creditor of the provisional seizure before the registration of the first decision to commence the auction may be entitled to a distribution in the position of the creditor of the provisional seizure by using the effect of the provisional seizure by proving that he/she has taken over the right to preserve before the distribution schedule becomes final and conclusive even if he/she does not obtain the succession execution clause (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Da33251, Jul. 13, 1993; 94Da5718, Jul. 28, 1995; where the transferee of the claim reported the claim to the auction court but fails to vindicate the acquisition of the claim before the distribution schedule becomes final and conclusive.

On the other hand, a lawsuit of demurrer against a distribution has nothing to resolve a dispute over the amount of distribution between the opposing parties relatively, and its judgment is effective only against the parties to the lawsuit. As such, even in a case where a certain creditor has received a distribution in accordance with the distribution schedule revised by the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the parties in the lawsuit of demurrer against a distribution, if the said distribution is deemed as the result of the receipt of the distribution even to the portion to be distributed to the creditors who have received the distribution by the other creditors who have not received the final and conclusive judgment in the lawsuit of demurrer against a distribution, the other creditors entitled to demand a distribution may file a claim for return of unjust enrichment against the creditors who received the distribution in accordance with the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the lawsuit of demurrer against a distribution in accordance with the above legal doctrine (see

Therefore, in case where the transferee of the claim who received the right to be preserved from the creditor of the provisional seizure registered prior to the registration of the first decision to commence the auction has reported the claim to the auction court, but failed to properly explain the fact of the acquisition of the claim before the distribution schedule becomes final and conclusive, if other creditors participating in the provisional seizure have raised an objection to the distribution against the amount distributed to the creditor of the provisional seizure on the ground that the other creditors participating in the provisional seizure have already been transferred to the transferee of the claim and already extinguished, and received the amount distributed to the creditor of the provisional seizure through a lawsuit of demurrer to a distribution, the transferee of the claim may file a claim

2. 원심판결 이유와 원심이 적법하게 채택한 증거 등에 의하면 원심은, ① 삼삼종합금융 주식회사(이하 ‘삼삼종금’이라 한다)가 동광제약 주식회사(이하 ‘동광제약’이라 한다)와 어음할인 및 기타 어음거래에 관한 어음거래약정(이하 ‘이 사건 어음거래약정’이라 한다)을 체결하였고, 소외인은 동광제약이 이 사건 어음거래약정에 따라 삼삼종금에 대하여 부담하는 채무를 연대보증한 사실, ② 그 후 이 사건 어음거래약정에 관하여 삼삼종금과 주식회사 한아름종합금융(2001. 6. 14. 주식회사 한아름상호신용금고에 흡수합병되었다. 이하 합병 전후의 법인을 모두 ‘한아름금고’라 한다) 및 동광제약과 그 연대보증인들 사이에 이 사건 어음거래약정의 채권자를 한아름금고로 변경하는 내용의 계약이 체결되었고, 동광제약에 대하여 1999. 2. 22. 화의절차가 개시되어 1999. 4. 9. 화의인가결정이 내려진 사실, ③ 한아름금고는 2001. 11. 29. 이 사건 어음거래약정에 기한 채권(이하 ‘이 사건 채권’이라 한다)을 비롯한 대출채권을 론스타 펀드 3호(이하 ‘론스타 펀드’라 한다)에 매각하는 내용의 대출채권매매계약을 체결하였다가 2001. 12. 31.에 이르러 주식회사 정리금융공사(이하 ‘정리금융공사’라 한다)에 흡수합병되었고, 정리금융공사와 론스타 펀드 및 엘에스에프코리아세븐 유동화전문유한회사(이하 ‘엘에스에프’라 한다)는 2002. 2. 8. 위 대출채권매매계약상의 매수인 지위를 엘에스에프가 인수하는 내용의 양도양수계약을 체결하고, 그 무렵 동광제약에 그 채권양도에 관한 양도통지를 한 사실, ④ 그 후 엘에스에프는 이 사건 채권을 비롯하여 동광제약에 대하여 가진 채권(34억 8,000만 원의 별제권에 기한 채권 및 82억 원의 화의채권)을 원고에게 양도하고 2002. 11. 14. 동광제약에 그 채권양도통지를 하였는데, 원고는 2002. 12. 4. 에이치에스제일차 유동화전문유한회사(이하 ‘에이치에스’라 한다)에 위와 같이 양도받은 채권 전부를 그대로 양도하고, 같은 날 동광제약에 그 양도통지를 한 사실, ⑤ 에이치에스는 2006. 4. 14. 이 사건 채권을 포함하여 위와 같이 원고로부터 양도받은 채권 중 26억 1,000만 원의 별제권에 기한 채권 및 화의채권을 다시 원고에게 양도하였는데, 에이치에스는 2006. 4. 19. 동광제약에 그 양도통지를 한 사실, ⑥ 한편 고려증권 주식회사(이하 ‘고려증권’이라 한다)는 동광제약과 사채보증계약을 체결하였는데, 소외인은 위 사채보증계약에 따라 동광제약이 부담하는 채무를 연대보증한 사실, ⑦ 고려증권은 1998. 10. 9. 파산선고를 받았고(이하 고려증권의 파산관재인을 ‘피고’라 한다), 피고는 2005. 9. 1. 소외인에 대한 위 사채보증계약에 따른 보증채권 중 50억 원을 피보전권리로 삼아 소외인 소유인 평택시 소사동 (지번 생략) 답 3,888㎡(이하 ‘이 사건 부동산’이라 한다)에 대해 가압류결정을 받고, 그에 따라 2005. 9. 5. 그 가압류결정의 기입등기를 마친 사실, ⑧ 그 후 피고는 소외인을 상대로 위 사채보증계약에 따른 보증채무의 이행을 구하는 소를 제기하여 승소확정판결(이하 ‘이 사건 판결’이라 한다)을 받은 사실, ⑨ 한아름금고는 2001. 8.경 이 사건 채권 중 10억 원을 피보전권리로 삼아 이 사건 부동산에 대해 가압류결정을 받고, 그에 따라 2001. 8. 9. 그 가압류결정의 기입등기를 마친 사실(이하 ‘이 사건 가압류’라 한다), ⑩ 피고의 이 사건 판결을 집행권원으로 한 부동산강제경매신청에 따라 2006. 6. 2. 이 사건 부동산에 대해 경매절차가 개시된 사실, ⑪ 이 사건 부동산이 매각된 후 진행된 배당절차에서 원고는 2007. 5. 29. 이 사건 가압류에 관한 채권계산서를 제출하면서 원고가 이 사건 채권의 최종양수인이라는 점에 대한 소명자료로 ‘엘에스에프가 이 사건 채권을 원고에게 양도하였다’는 취지의 채권양도통지서를 제출하였으나, ‘정리금융공사가 이 사건 채권을 엘에스에프에 양도하였다’는 점에 관한 채권양도통지서 등은 제출하지 아니한 사실, ⑫ 이에 경매법원은 위 채권양도통지서만으로는 원고가 이 사건 채권의 최종양수인이라는 점이 소명되지 않았다고 보아 배당기일인 2007. 6. 5. 배당을 실시하면서, 1순위로 가압류권자인 정리금융공사에 108,879,882원을, 같은 순위로 신청채권자인 피고에게 1,218,316,568원을 각 배당하였는데, 피고는 배당기일에 출석하여 위 배당표 중 정리금융공사에 배당된 배당액 전부에 대하여 이의를 진술하고, 2007. 6. 8. 배당이의의 소를 제기한 사실, ⑬ 피고가 정리금융공사를 상대로 제기한 배당이의의 소에서 정리금융공사가 피보전권리를 원고에게 양도하여 소외인에 대하여 채권이 없다는 이유로 위 배당표 중 정리금융공사의 배당액을 삭감하고, 그 금액을 피고에게 배당하는 것으로 경정하는 내용의 판결이 선고되었고, 이후 그대로 확정된 사실, ⑭ 한편 원고는 이 사건 가압류의 피보전권리인 양수금 채권에 관하여 가압류채무자인 소외인을 상대로 지급명령을 신청하여 지급명령을 받았고, 그 지급명령이 확정된 사실을 알 수 있다.

According to the above legal principles and facts, although the plaintiff asserted that he was transferred the right to be preserved by the reorganization financial corporation, a creditor of provisional seizure registered prior to the registration of the first decision on commencement of auction, he did not vindicate himself as the final transferee of the above claim before the distribution schedule becomes final and conclusive, while the reorganization financial corporation could receive dividends in the same order as the defendant, so that the reorganization financial corporation may not have to receive dividends from the reorganization financial corporation. However, in such a case, the above amount of dividends for the reorganization financial corporation is deposited, and if the plaintiff, who was ordered to receive a final and conclusive payment order against the debtor of provisional seizure, submitted materials proving the acquisition of claims, such as the above payment order, he can receive the above amount of dividends directly, so the above amount of dividends shall be ultimately attributed to the plaintiff. However, since the reorganization financial corporation and the defendant, who was divided in accordance with his claim amount, filed a lawsuit of objection against the liquidation financial corporation against the plaintiff, and the liquidation financial corporation did not receive additional dividends for the reasons that there was no claim against the non-party for distribution, this decision does not have the right to receive dividends from the defendant financial corporation.

Nevertheless, for reasons indicated in its holding, the court below rejected the Plaintiff’s claim for return of unjust enrichment on the ground that, if the Plaintiff did not vindicate that the right to be preserved was acquired by the reorganization financial corporation before the distribution schedule becomes final and conclusive, the amount that could have been received by the Plaintiff was distributed to other creditors when it proves that it was the assignee, and thus, it cannot be deemed that there was no legal ground. In so doing, it erred by misapprehending the legal principles on return of unjust enrichment, which affected the conclusion

3. Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Jeon Soo-ahn (Presiding Justice)