Suwon District Court Decision 2014 Ghana17515 (Law No. 18, 2014)

The dividends received by the defendant in the procedure of compulsory auction of this case, regardless of whether the defendant's negligence is the unjust enrichment without any legal ground.

The compulsory auction of this case is null and void since the compulsory auction of this case is limited to the real estate owned by others, not owned by YellowB from the beginning of the commencement of the compulsory auction, and therefore, it is deemed that the defendant has a duty to return it since the amount received by the defendant during the compulsory auction of this case without any legal ground under the plaintiff's damage.

Article 741 of the Civil Act: Contents of Unjust Enrichment

2014Na42483 Unlawful gains

ConversionA

Korea

Suwon District Court Decision 2014 Ghana17515 Decided September 18, 2014

April 21, 2015

May 22, 2015

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff OO members and 20% interest per annum from December 7, 2010 to June 5, 2014, and 5% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

4. Paragraph 2 can be provisionally executed.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

(a) Facts of recognition;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence 1 through 4:

1) On September 6, 1999, in the case of the compulsory auction (hereinafter referred to as “instant compulsory auction”) by Suwon District Court, Suwon District Court, Suwon District Court, 97 Mao-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho (hereinafter referred to as “the instant compulsory auction”), the Plaintiff at OO-si O-ri 257-3 river 615 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “the instant land”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer on September 28, 199.

2) The Plaintiff owned the instant land before the successful bid. The Defendant, who was the tax creditor of YellowB, was allocated OOB as a seizure authority during the compulsory auction procedure of this case on October 14, 1999.

3) Meanwhile, in a lawsuit filed by the NewCC against the Plaintiff et al. for the registration of transfer of ownership in Seoul Western District Court 2003Mo○○○○○○○, the above court rendered a judgment on June 22, 2006 that the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of YellowB related to the instant land was invalid in accordance with the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership Transfer of Real Estate under the false guarantee certificate, and the compulsory auction of this case is null and void as a result, the Plaintiff is obligated to implement the procedure for the registration of cancellation of ownership transfer in the name of the Plaintiff on the instant land, and that judgment became final and conclusive on August 5,

4) Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s transfer of ownership on the instant land was cancelled on December 7, 2010.

B. Determination

In a case where the successful bidder paid the price of the real estate at the auction through the compulsory auction procedure and completed the registration of transfer of ownership in the future, but thereafter, if the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the debtor, which is the basis of the procedure for compulsory auction, becomes null and void, and thus it becomes impossible to acquire the ownership of the auction real estate, such compulsory auction is null and void, so the successful bidder may request the creditor of auction to return the amount he received out of the proceeds of auction in accordance with the general unjust enrichment law (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Da59259, Jun. 24,

In light of the above legal principles, the compulsory auction of this case is null and void since the compulsory auction of this case was conducted for real estate owned by another person not owned by yellowB from the commencement date of the compulsory auction of this case. Thus, the defendant is obligated to return it to the plaintiff as a result of acquiring without any legal cause under the plaintiff's damage, which is the successful bidder of the land of this case. Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff damages for delay by 5% per annum under the Civil Act from December 7, 2010 to June 5, 2014, the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case from June 5, 2014, which is the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, as requested by the plaintiff.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

Although the defendant asserts that the dividend received by the defendant is not a unjust enrichment without any legal ground, as he received a lawful and effective dividend in the course of the compulsory auction procedure of this case as a tax claim of YellowB, the defendant asserts that the compulsory auction of this case is null and void, regardless of the defendant's negligence, the dividend received by the defendant in the course of the compulsory auction of this case shall be deemed to be unjust enrichment without any legal ground. Therefore, the defendant's argument is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and the judgment of the court of first instance which has different conclusions is unfair, and it shall be revoked and ordered to order the payment of the above amount. It is so decided as per Disposition.