beta
Text
1.The judgment of the first instance, including a claim for additional collection in the trial, shall be modified as follows:
The plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the underlying facts is as follows: (a) 1 of the judgment of the court of first instance was changed to “the lawsuit was concluded upon withdrawal of the lawsuit by D on September 7, 2015 during the appellate trial’s continuation; and (b) 8 of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to the corresponding part of the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding “A No. 29” to “the grounds for recognition.”
2. The plaintiff's assertion
A. The assignment order of the claim and assignment order as stated in Paragraph (d) (2) (B) of Paragraph (1) above as the primary claim (hereinafter the assignment order of this case) is null and void due to the absence of the entire claim.
D has paid the entire amount by mistake to the Defendants, who are the entire right holder of the assignment order of this case that is null and void, D has a claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the total amount (Defendant B 100,000,000, Defendant C122,750,000) against the Defendants.
1) Accordingly, the Plaintiff received a seizure and collection order on the above claim for return of unjust enrichment against the Defendants. As such, the Defendants are obligated to pay the above collection amount (Defendant B54,808,800 won, Defendant C67,277,800 won) and damages for delay thereof to the Plaintiff. 2) In addition, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the above Seoul Central District Court’s claim for return of unjust enrichment to the Defendants by subrogation of G and D in succession in order to preserve the Plaintiff’s claim against D and D based on the above Seoul Central District Court Decision 2013Gahap46370. In addition, the amount is KRW 22,750,000 from the above claim for seizure and collection order at KRW 222,750,000, the above claim for return of unjust enrichment, whichever is based on the above judgment, deducted the principal amount of KRW 89,20,000,000 (Defendant B59,595, 107, C739,39, and damages for delay against the Defendants.
B. Preliminary Claim D paid the full amount by mistake to the Defendants, who are the entire right holder of the assignment order of this case that is null and void. This is against quasi-Possessor of the claim.