beta
Text
1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Incheon District Court A. Docheon A.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On November 30, 2015, the Plaintiff transferred 39,424,000 to the Industrial Bank of Korea (B; hereinafter “instant account”) account of the former business partner, EELNB Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “SELNB”) in the course of remitting the sales price of goods to Elsch Rexroth Group Co., Ltd., Ltd., a business partner.
(hereinafter “the instant error remittance”). B.
With respect to the mistake remittance of this case, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the above SEL industry as Incheon District Court Branching 2015Kadan28557, 2015Kadan28557, and accordingly, on April 27, 2016, the “SELNB industry” paid to the Plaintiff KRW 39,424,00,00 and damages for delay thereof, and “the judgment of this case.”
(C) On June 11, 2016, the foregoing judgment became final and conclusive as it was. (d) On June 23, 2016, the Plaintiff issued a provisional seizure and collection order by designating the debtor as the title of execution, under the control of the Incheon District Court’s Branch Branch Branch Branch Office 2016TTTY 2016,5539. Meanwhile, on the other hand, on April 16, 2013, based on the tax claim (total amount of local taxes and additional taxes, KRW 22,25,410) and the Defendant’s taxation claim (total amount of 148,828,140, the corporate tax and additional charges) against the above account of the ELN industry on June 222, 2016.
E. The Industrial Bank of Korea deposited KRW 39,372,04,00 in the balance of the instant account, and prepared a distribution schedule stating that the said deposit was subject to distribution procedure by Busan District Court Branch A., and that the distribution court distributed KRW 11,676,810 in the date of distribution on November 23, 2016 and KRW 27,680,339 in the Republic of Korea respectively on the date of distribution.
F. The Plaintiff appears on the date of distribution of the instant distribution procedure and stated an objection against the Defendants as to the entire amount of the dividend.