In the assignment order, in case where the debtor has a right to claim a third party's claim against the third party's obligor in the assignment order, whether it is disqualified for the right to claim a return.

Even if the debtor has the right to claim the return of the claim against the third party in the assignment order, even though the debtor has the right to claim the return of the above claim against the third party, the right to claim the return of the above claim cannot be deemed to be qualified as the whole claim. Thus, in case where an auction is conducted on the real estate held in title trust and the auction court distributes the successful bid price to the creditors and then leaves the dividends in the future of the title trustee, even if the title truster becomes entitled to claim the return of the right to claim the return of the right to claim the payment of the above compensation upon termination of the above title trust contract, even if

Articles 57 and 563 of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff

Defendant

Busan District Court Decision 84Na246 delivered on July 13, 1984

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Busan District Court Panel Division.

We examine the Defendant’s grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, although the real estate of this case was registered under the name of the defendant, since the title trust contract was terminated because the non-party 1 was registered under the title trust, the actual owner of the real estate was the non-party 1, and upon the auction of the non-party Korea Housing and Commercial Bank, the mortgagee of the right to collateral security regarding the above real estate, the auction court paid the auction price to the non-party 2 on May 21, 1983, and left the auction price for the non-party 2,300 won to the defendant, who is the title holder of the right to share dividends. Meanwhile, since the plaintiff was under the title of debt of the Daegu High Court 80Na945 decided against the above non-party 1, the Busan High Court 83Do1041,10442, and the above non-party 1 was the debtor and the defendant as the third debtor, and the defendant received the claim for the refund of the remaining amount of dividends and the original copy of the decision were to be paid to the defendant.

However, as seen by the court below, even if the defendant made unjust enrichment of the claim that the defendant would receive the balance of the successful bid price from the country and the defendant is liable to return the claim to the non-party 1, the same right to claim the above claim that the non-party 1 holds against the defendant cannot be deemed to be eligible as a whole claim. If the above balance of the dividends remains in the name of the defendant as determined by the court below, and if the above amount of the dividends remains in the name of the defendant, it cannot be deemed that the defendant made unjust enrichment, at the time of issuance of the assignment order of this case, the defendant did not have any obligation to return the amount to the non-party 1 as unjust enrichment

Nevertheless, as seen above, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the scope of return of unjust enrichment and the validity of the qualification and assignment order of the entire claim, which cited the plaintiff's claim for the entire amount of the entire claim, and failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations. This constitutes a ground for reversal under Article 12 (2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings. Therefore, the argument

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Busan District Court Panel Division which is the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices O Sung-sung(Presiding Justice)