beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 5,00,000 as well as 5% per annum from March 3, 2015 to May 12, 2016 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff is a comprehensive financial corporation specializing in credit finance for the rental of objects. B is a person who registered his/her business with D in the name of Kimhae-si C (hereinafter “instant place”).
B. On November 29, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for facility leasing (financial lease) with E and the goods listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant goods”) with “Gimhae-si C,” “175,000,000 won”, “36 months”, “4,430 won” during the agreed period, and “4,240,430 won.”
(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). C.
B Lending KRW 7,50,000 from the Defendant on February 13, 2014, KRW 77,500,000, as indicated in the Attachment Nos. 1, 3, 1 of CNC Line (18029) (hereinafter “instant vertical bargaining”) and less than one of CNC Line (PM10S0656).
(D) Around May 2014, the Defendant offered the instant vertical bargaining and CNC Line at the instant location as a security for transfer, and received delivery by means of an occupancy amendment. D. The Defendant seized the instant vertical bargaining and CNC Line (CNC District Court 2014No. 1416), and the instant vertical bargaining and CNC Line were in progress, but only the instant vertical bargaining was sold at KRW 65,00,000 on July 22, 2014. E. On July 23, 2014, the Defendant received the payment of KRW 1,550,500 as the proceeds of the instant auction procedure, and received dividends of KRW 55,00,00 from the remainder of the proceeds of the sale [the purport of the entire pleadings is as follows: (a) the fact that there is no ground for recognition; (b) the fact that there is no ground for dispute; and (c) the purport of the entire pleadings, as indicated in the evidence No. 1 and evidence No. 21.
2. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. 1) The parties’ assertion 1) Since the Plaintiff’s assertion was owned by the Plaintiff, the Defendant did not have the right to receive a distribution of the proceeds from the sale of the check of this case owned by the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to return the said dividends and the execution cost paid by the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment. 2) The Defendant’s argument B is the instant case.