1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The facts of recognition 1) The Plaintiff is a C-Union engaged in the financial business, etc., and the Defendant opened an account with the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff deposited with the Plaintiff. 2) On July 31, 2015, the Plaintiff served a creditor D (the claimed amount KRW 69,902,577) with the Suwon District Court Sung-nam Branch 2015TT8573 (the claimed amount), the debtor and the third debtor were served with a seizure and collection order with the Defendant and the third debtor. On August 6, 2015, the Plaintiff served the creditor E (the claimed amount 50,000,000) with the above court 2015TT8542, and the Defendant and the third debtor were served with a collection order with the claim seizure and collection order with the Defendant and the third debtor, etc. at that time, there were remaining KRW 7,025,019 in the Defendant’s account.

3) Accordingly, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 7,025,019 (Seoul District Court Branch 859) in Suwon District Court Branch 2015 on August 25, 2015, on the ground that the seizure was concurrent, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 7,025,019 (hereinafter referred to as Suwon District Court 2015). 4) The rehabilitation procedure (Seoul Rehabilitation Court 2016 Gohap 10283) against the Defendant began on December 23, 2016. On February 21, 2018, the rehabilitation plan approval was issued by the above court, and accordingly, the said order of seizure and collection became void, and the Defendant deposited the deposit balance in the said account on August 23, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 1 to 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above facts of recognition, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant’s deposit claim against the Plaintiff was extinguished by the Plaintiff’s deposit pursuant to Article 248(1) of the Civil Execution Act on August 25, 2015.

Nevertheless, the Defendant received KRW 7,025,019 from the Plaintiff based on the same deposit claim on August 23, 2018, and thus, it is reasonable to obtain profit equivalent to the above amount and incur loss to the Plaintiff without any legal grounds.

Therefore, it is reasonable for the Defendant to dispute the existence and scope of the Defendant’s obligation from July 3, 2019, which was the day following the service of the original copy of the instant payment order, to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment.