logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.02.03 2014가단5216938
부당이득금
Text

1. The Defendant: 20% per annum from June 11, 2015 to September 30, 2015, and October 2015 to each of the Plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. 1) On March 27, 2014, the Seoul Central District Court: (a) deposited KRW 208,148,608 in the Republic of Korea (hereinafter “Korea”) with the Defendant a notarial deed as to one promissory note (hereinafter “instant notarial deed”). Accordingly, the Defendant was issued with respect to the claim for the seizure and collection of the claim for the amount of the investment refund (hereinafter “the instant claim for the refund of the investment”) held by the Sea against the Korea Special Sales Mutual Aid Association (hereinafter “Association”); and (b) the Plaintiffs received the order for seizure and collection as to each of the above claims for return of the investment amount of KRW 45,00,00 from the above claims for the refund of the investment amount of KRW 208,000,000,000 in face value; (c) the Seoul Central District Court deposited the said claims for return of the investment amount of KRW 208,148,608 in accordance with Article 248(1) of the Civil Execution Act with respect to the distribution schedule executed by the Seoul Central District Court.

B. On the grounds that the aforementioned Seoul Central District Court stated an objection on the date of distribution DD and filed a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution (Seoul Central District Court 2014Da161064), the said notarial deed in a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution was null and void as it was a false notarial deed prepared on the basis of false representation between the sea and the defendant in Korea, the judgment was rendered to rectify the amount distributed to the defendant in the instant distribution schedule to KRW 53,815,193, and the judgment became final and conclusive on November 17, 2015, which became final and conclusive on the ground that the notarial deed in this case was invalid as a false notarial deed prepared on the basis of false representation between the sea and the defendant.

3 The defendant paid the above final amount of 53,815,193 won, and the plaintiffs raised an objection on the date of the above distribution.

arrow