Return of Unjust Enrichment

It is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant received dividends of KRW 44,472,358 without any legal ground, and there is no other evidence to prove it. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit without examining it.

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 4,472,358 won with 5% per annum from November 17, 2005 to the delivery date of the complaint of this case, and 20% per annum from the next day to the full payment date.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 31, 2001, with respect to ○○○○-dong ○○○○○○○○-dong ○○○○○○○○-dong ○○○○○○○○-dong ○○○○○○○○ (hereinafter the “1’’’), the registration of ownership transfer was completed on July 31, 200 with respect to the same ○○○-dong ○○○○○○-dong ○○○○○○-dong ○○○○○○-dong ○○○○○

B. On July 31, 2001, 201, the ○○○ Bank Co., Ltd. (the ○○○○ Bank and the ○○ Bank, Co., Ltd. established the Plaintiff on a merger on November 1, 2001, and established the Plaintiff; hereinafter referred to as the “the ○○ Bank”) established the establishment registration of a neighboring establishment in the Plaintiff’s name, which was made on July 30, 201, on the 1st real estate of KRW 68.9 million with the maximum debt amount, and the ○○○○○○

C. However, on October 29, 2003, the ○○○○ filed a lawsuit claiming the cancellation of ownership transfer registration against the Gangwon○○○○ District Court 2003Kadan0000 on the ground that the registration of ownership transfer registration in the name of Gangwon○ District Court 2003Kadan0000 was invalid inasmuch as the ○○○○○ who purchased the 1 real estate by means of a mistake of the owner was residing in the ○○○○○○ who purchased the 2 real estate, even though the 1st real estate was sold in lots, and the 2nd real estate was sold in lots, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on January 31, 2004.

D. On December 29, 2004, the Plaintiff terminated the contract to establish a mortgage on the first real estate, and on the same day, on the second real estate on December 29, 2004, registered the establishment of a mortgage under the name of the Plaintiff, which was composed of the maximum debt amount of KRW 68.9 million, and the debtor's Gangwon-do.

E. On the other hand, on December 29, 2004, the registration of ownership transfer in the name of Gangwon○○ was cancelled on the grounds of the above final judgment, and the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the largest○○○○ was completed on the same day. On the same day, the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the largest○○ was cancelled on the grounds of cancellation of the agreement on December 29, 2004, and the registration of ownership transfer in the name of Gangwon○○ was completed.

F. On January 10, 2005, the Defendant (the ○○○○○ Tax Office) seized the real estate on January 2, 2005, and the Plaintiff applied for the auction of real estate rent under this Court No. 2005,000 to exercise the right to collateral security established on the second real estate.

G. On November 16, 2005, the above auction court distributed KRW 50,392,168 to ○○○○○○, a person holding the right of issuance, KRW 250,910, and KRW 50,141,258 to ○○○○, a person holding the right of seizure, respectively, and distributed KRW 50,91,258 to ○○○○○, a person holding the right of seizure, and did not distribute to the Plaintiff, a person holding

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, Gap evidence 4-6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff initially set the date of establishing the right to collateral security on his own real estate was July 31, 2001. The plaintiff had the duty to return KRW 4,472,358,00 other than the tax claim 5,68,90,000, which became due before July 31, 201, which became due to the change of the plaintiff's ownership on the second real estate from the wind of December 29, 2004 without the plaintiff's cause, and the tax claim against Gangwon ○○ also occurred before the change of ownership. However, in the case of the plaintiff, the auction court applied the new date of establishing the right to collateral security, and in the case of the defendant, it is improper to exclude the plaintiff from the dividend by applying the statutory date of the tax claim. Thus, the defendant's claim that the plaintiff should return the remaining amount of KRW 44,472,358,00, which became due to the statutory due date of the plaintiff's existing right to collateral security before July 31, 2001, 2001.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.