The case recognizing the right to claim a return of unjust enrichment against the mortgagee where the tax imposition disposition is revoked.

Although the state in the process of voluntary auction has given priority to the national tax claims against the debtor, it is impossible for the mortgagee to collect the amount equivalent to the amount of the national tax from the mortgagee, if the State's disposition of imposing tax on the debtor is revoked by a final judgment, the above amount collected by the State shall be returned to the mortgagee as unjust enrichment,

Article 74 of the Civil Act

[Judgment of the court below]

Korea

Seoul High Court Decision 79Na2895 delivered on February 22, 1980

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney are examined.

According to the judgment of the court below, since the defendant's disposition of imposing taxes on the non-party was revoked by a final judgment, the amount of taxes collected from the non-party was collected from the non-party who is not directly collected from the above non-party, but the defendant filed for a voluntary auction based on the claims secured by the collateral security against the above non-party against the Seoul Trust Bank, and the defendant claimed for the payment of the amount of national taxes against the above non-party during the auction procedure, and the Seoul Trust Bank was granted the above non-party priority over other claims, and thus it was impossible for the defendant to collect the amount of the national taxes against the above non-party, and thus the Seoul Trust Bank was not obligated to return the amount of taxes collected by the defendant to the above Seoul Trust Bank as unjust enrichment, and the above non-party is not obligated to return it to the above non-party. Therefore, the court below's findings

Justices Presiding Justice (Presiding Justice)