In case of remitting money to another person by mistake, it shall be limited to the general creditor who has the right to claim the return of unjust enrichment against the other person.

Even if a deposit contract was established between the Nonparty and the bank due to the money remitted by mistake, and the distribution procedure for the deposit claim was commenced, the Plaintiff merely holds the right to claim restitution of unjust enrichment against the Nonparty, and the above circumstance alone alone cannot be deemed as having the right to claim reimbursement of unjust enrichment against the Nonparty or having the right to receive exclusive distribution of the said money in relation to the Defendants.

National Tax Collection Act

2012 Gohap85132 Demurrer against distribution

IsaA

KimB 4 others

December 18, 2012

January 22, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

Of the distribution schedule prepared by the above court on October 5, 2012 with respect to the distribution procedure case of Seoul Central District Court 2012TTTT, the amount of dividends to the defendant KimB, the amount of dividends to the defendant KimB, the amount of dividends to the defendant 1CC, the amount of dividends to the defendant 1CC, the amount of dividends to the defendant 1, the amount of dividends to the Republic of Korea, the amount of dividends to the defendant 1, the amount of dividends to the defendant 1, the amount of dividends to the defendant 1, and the amount of dividends to the defendant 1, the amount of dividends to the defendant 200 won, and the amount of dividends to the

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff, by mistake, remitted the amount of KRW 000 to ChoE by erroneously designating the payee to the account in the GG bank of the FFAD Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “FFAD”).

B. On February 21, 2012, the Plaintiff received a payment order seeking the return of unjust enrichment amounting to the FFID amounting to the FFD amounting to KRW 2012Kahap37, under which the debtor FID, and the garnishee were the debtor as the bank (hereinafter referred to as “GG bank”), and received a provisional attachment order on the claim against the FFD bank’s deposit claims, and received a provisional attachment order on June 25, 2012 from the Changwon District Court through through the Changwon District Court Decision 2012Hu731, the Changwon District Court through the Changwon District Court 201, the payment order became final and conclusive on August 14, 2012, and then transferred the FFD’s deposit claims to the FFD bank to the provisional attachment order and the collection order.

C. GG Bank deposited KRW 000 as the Seoul Central District Court No. 12365, on the grounds that the FFadi’s deposit claims were seized, on the ground that the FFadi’s deposit claims were seized.

D. On October 5, 2012, the Seoul Central District Court 2012taro 2333, which commenced with respect to the above deposit, the above court drafted a distribution schedule with Defendant KimB on October 5, 2012 to distribute the above amount of 00 won to Defendant KimB, and 000 won to Defendant DD, and 000 won to Defendant Republic of Korea, and 000 won to Defendant GG Health Insurance Corporation, and the Plaintiff raised an objection to the whole amount of each of the above dividends.

[Grounds for Recognition] The non-contentious facts, the entries in evidence A to 7, and the whole purport of the pleading;

A. Summary of the cause of the claim

Since the Plaintiff, by mistake, wrongfully designated the payee and remitted KRW 000 to the bank account of the FFadi to the GG bank account of the FFadi, the above money should be returned to the Plaintiff, it is unlawful to distribute the above money to the Defendant mold in the instant dividend procedure commenced with respect to the above money, and therefore, the distribution schedule should be revised by eliminating the dividend amount for the Defendant mold and distributing the entire dividend amount to the Plaintiff.

B. Determination

1) Account transfer is a system under which a bank that provides safe and prompt transfer of funds at low cost through the remittance procedure between banks and bank stores, and a bank that provides brokerage services without involvement in the existence or absence of legal relations, which are the cause of the transfer of funds, and the content thereof. Therefore, in cases of cash transfer or account transfer, it is limited to the basic terms and conditions of deposit transactions when deposit is recorded in the ledger of deposit transactions, and there is a separate agreement between the transferor and the bank that is the cause of the account transfer between the payee and the payee. It is unreasonable to interpret that there is no legal relationship between the transferor and the bank that is the cause of the account transfer, and that there is no claim for return of unjust enrichment between the payee and the bank that is the cause of the account transfer, and that there is no legal relationship between the payee and the bank that is the cause of the account transfer, and that there is no claim for return of unjust enrichment between the payee and the bank that is the cause of the account transfer, and that there is no reasonable ground for the account transfer request between the payee and the bank.

2) The Plaintiff’s assertion is ① The Plaintiff’s assertion does not mean that the amount remitted by mistake by the Plaintiff is the Plaintiff’s deposit claim against the FFID’s GG bank (the Plaintiff has a claim for return of unjust enrichment against the GG bank, which is the receiving bank), and, therefore, on the premise that the Plaintiff’s deposit claim is established, it is unlawful to initiate the instant dividend procedure against the said deposit claim, or (2) as long as FFID has a deposit claim against the GG bank due to the Plaintiff’s error remittance, it seems that the Plaintiff should have a preferential dividend in the dividend procedure against the said deposit claim, which is the Defendants, the Plaintiff’s other creditors of FFID.

3) In light of the above legal principles, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the payment procedure of this case was unlawful on the premise that the deposit contract was not established between FFAD and GG bank, and even if the Plaintiff transferred the money to FFAD without any legal cause, the deposit contract equivalent to the above money was established between FFAD and the GG bank, and that the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have acquired the right to claim for return of unjust enrichment against the GG bank. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the payment procedure of this case commenced against the above deposit was unlawful on the premise that the deposit contract was not established between FFAD and the GG bank. Furthermore, if the Plaintiff’s assertion falls under the latter, it is without any need to further examine the remaining issues. Furthermore, if the Plaintiff’s assertion falls under the latter, and even if the deposit contract was established between FFAD and the GG bank and the payment procedure commenced due to mistake, it is merely because the Plaintiff had the right to claim for return of unjust enrichment against the FFIDD, the Plaintiff cannot be viewed to have exclusive right to claim the payment right against the Defendants.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed for all reasons. It is so decided as per Disposition.