1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 16, 201, Incheon District Court Decision 201 High Court Decision 28263 decided on January 7, 2012, in the case of violation of the Customs Act, the surcharge of KRW 312,116,790 was imposed on C. The Seoul Northern District Prosecutors’ Office seized the deposit claim against C, a new bank (hereinafter “new bank”) with the claim to be preserved on September 10, 2015.

B. On March 14, 2016, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 20,000,00 to a new bank account under C’s name.

C. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against C for restitution of unjust enrichment with Seoul Northern District Court 2016 Ghana15953 and received a decision of performance recommendation with the purport that “C shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 20,000,000.” Based on this, on May 26, 2016, the Plaintiff received a seizure and collection order with respect to the deposit claim against C’s new bank.

On August 8, 2016, the new bank deposited KRW 21,341,91 of the deposit amount of KRW C and deposited KRW 21,341,91 for concurrent seizure, the Defendant filed a report on KRW 311,116,790 with respect to the unpaid amount of additional charges against KRW C on August 8, 2016. On August 26, 2016, the said court made a distribution schedule by dividing the Plaintiff and the Republic of Korea in proportion to the Plaintiff’s distribution in that order.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the deposit money should be returned to C by mistake, and thus, the Defendant’s seizure against the said money is unlawful.

Therefore, the amount of dividend, such as the purport of the claim, should be revised.

3. The Plaintiff paid KRW 20,000,000 to the new bank account of C in error.

Even if C acquires a deposit claim equivalent to the amount of the deposit against the new bank, the plaintiff has a claim for the return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the amount of the error deposit against C, and the seizure of the defendant in this case is made by C.