Seoul East East District Court-2015-Seo-72656 ( October 23, 2016)

Return of Unjust Enrichment

The amount distributed by the Defendant pursuant to the distribution schedule prepared in the real estate auction case, which was jointly owned by Nonparty A with Nonparty A as the ratio of 1/2, shall not be deemed as unjust enrichment, since the amount distributed by the Defendant is not the Plaintiff’s sales price, but the Plaintiff

National Tax Collection Act

2016Na24606 Return of unjust enrichment

KimA

Korea

Seoul Eastern District Court 2015 Ghana72656

November 28, 2016

December 14, 2016

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 12,591,490 won with 5% interest per annum from September 11, 2013 to the service date of a copy of the complaint, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.The purport of appeal is that the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 12,59

Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff ordering payment shall be revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 12,591,490 won with 5% interest per annum from September 11, 2013 to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint, and 15% interest per annum from the following day to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

“The Plaintiff and the headB shared 1/2 shares each of them, under the control of the Daejeon District Court EE-Support 201Mo FFFF3 in relation to the DD 100-4 1,682 m2 m2 (hereinafter “instant land”), the said court distributed KRW 25,182,980 in the order of the Defendant on September 11, 2013, as indicated in the attached Table No. 2012 E-FF3 in relation to the land of this case, and the said court distributed KRW 25,182,980 in the order of the Defendant on September 11, 2013.” [The grounds for recognition], the absence of any dispute, the entries in the attached Table No. 1, 2, and 3, and

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion

All land of this case by the Defendant, the creditor of the head of the

Inasmuch as the proceeds of sale received KRW 25,182,980 from the proceeds of sale, 12,591,490, which can be said to have been distributed from the proceeds of sale of 1/2, the Plaintiff’s shares in the land of this case, should be returned to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

B. Determination

However, in all evidence of the plaintiff's submission, the above money distributed to the defendant is sold to the plaintiff's share.

In short, it is insufficient to regard the dividend received from the gold as a dividend, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, according to the evidence of the above-mentioned, the amount corresponding to the sales price of shares held by the headB out of the 126,900,240 won of the balance after the distribution to theCC Credit Union, a second creditor, even under the instant

63,450,120 won is 63,450,120 won, and 25,182,980 won of the Defendant’s claim for delivery was distributed to the Defendant, and the remaining amount was distributed to the Defendant, who is a senior creditor of the instant land. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant’s dividends paid out of the proceeds of the sale of shares in the Chapter B is reasonable. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just with this conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.