The case holding that even if the total amount transferred according to the attachment and assignment order of a claim previously made by the transferee of a specific claim had been fully deducted, and the obligee did not claim part of the entire claim or had no possibility to claim it, the transferee of the claim cannot claim the unjust enrichment.

[1] Article 741 of the Civil Code

[Defendant-Appellee] Heun Construction Co., Ltd. (Attorney Park Jong-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellee

early water (Law Firm Han field, Attorneys Park Jong-wing et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2003Na55730 delivered on February 4, 2004

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below and the records, 196. 3. 13. 10, 196, 20, 200, 200, 200, 196, 30, 196, 40, 200, 96, 196, 200, 196, 30, 196, 40, 206, 196, 96, 30, 40, 96, 196, 196, 40, 196, 196, 20, 196, 196, 30, 196, 196, 20, 196, 30, 196, 196, 30, 196, 30, 196, 196, 30, 196, 196, 2, 96, 3

If the facts are the same, insofar as the attachment and assignment order of each of the claims in the traditional rooftop and Park Jong-ok based on an executory title has been duly established and confirmed, the claim against the defendant of the luminous Construction, which is an executory creditor, is naturally transferred within the scope of the executory claim. Even if the execution claim of the 60,000,000 won and the amount equivalent to the 60,000,000 won out of the performance claim of the traditional rooftop's execution claim, are related to the underlying claim and the payment of the promissorysory note claim, the validity of the attachment and assignment order of each claim in the traditional rooftop and Park Jong-ok is no longer affected. Accordingly, the plaintiff, who is in the position of receiving the claim against the defendant from the luminous Construction, cannot obtain the transfer of the transferred claim to the traditional rooftop and Park Jong-ok based on the seizure and assignment order of each claim in the Madae-ok's execution title, and even if the claim is actually claimed or not repaid, the plaintiff cannot claim the whole amount of the claim against the defendant's 10, the plaintiff and the above.

Although the decision of the court below is somewhat insufficient in its reasoning, it is just in its conclusion rejecting the plaintiff's claim for return of unjust enrichment. Therefore, the argument in the ground of appeal disputing this is not acceptable.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Jae- Jae (Presiding Justice)