Bonds with a fixed date and a house rental guarantee bond that meet the requirements for transfer shall take priority over general bonds.

The Plaintiff, a lessee, is the second priority following the third priority mortgagee, and is entitled to the remainder of the right to demand a distribution, based on the fixed date (see, e.g., obtaining the entire amount of demand for distribution), so the remainder which has not been distributed is deemed to have been distributed in excess of the amount to

2012 Return of Fraudulent Enrichment 9180

EAA

Four Overseas of the Republic of Korea

January 15, 2013

February 5, 2013

1. The Plaintiff shall pay 00 won for Defendant Seosan, 000 won for Defendant Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd., 000 won for Defendant Korea Housing Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd, and 000 won for Defendant Korea Asset Management Corporation, and 5% per annum for August 17, 201 to February 5, 2013, and 20% per annum for each of the above amounts from the following day to the date of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant Republic of Korea and the remaining claims against the other defendants are all dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Republic of Korea shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the part arising between the Plaintiff and the remaining Defendants shall

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The Plaintiff shall pay to Defendant Republic of Korea the amount of KRW 000, KRW 000 for Defendant Seosan, KRW 000 for Defendant Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd., KRW 000 for Defendant Korea Housing Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd., and KRW 000 for Defendant Korea Asset Management Corporation and each of the above money from August 17, 201 to the delivery date of the instant complaint, KRW 5% per annum for the period from August 17, 201 to the delivery date of the instant complaint, and KRW 20% per annum for the following day to

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff on July 22, 2008, EE Engineering Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "the plaintiff of this case")

On July 30 of the same year, the lease contract was concluded with respect to the OO No. 000,000,000 (hereinafter referred to as the "the apartment of this case") owned by Seosan-si, Seosan-si, with the deposit for the lease deposit of KRW 50,000,000, and the possession of the apartment of this case was commenced under the name of the owner of the apartment of this case after paying the deposit to the lessor of this case. On August 14 of the same year, the transfer report was made on August 14 of the same year.

B. The instant apartment was placed at an auction on October 201, along with an OO’s sectionally owned apartment building with another 105 households of the Daejeon District Court (Seoul District Court Daejeon District Court Decision 2010Ma12703, Seosan, 2010Ma7763), and the Plaintiff filed a report on the right and demand for distribution as a lessee with the fixed date date on February 28, 2011 in the said auction procedure.

C. On August 17, 2011, the said personnel of the said administrative court opened a date of distribution, and opened a distribution schedule in attached Form (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”).

As seen in the above distribution schedule, the Plaintiff was given dividends of KRW 000,000, which is part of the lease deposit, because it is treated in the same order with the general creditor as seen in the above distribution schedule.

D. The sales price of the apartment of this case was KRW 000, and the execution cost was KRW 000 on the whole of 106 households, and if the sales price of the apartment of this case is divided in proportion to the sales price of each household, the amount to be borne by the apartment of this case was KRW 000. Therefore, the actual amount to be apportioned as to the apartment of this case is KRW 000.

E. Interested parties on the apartment of this case are as follows.

1) A mutual savings bank holding the right to collateral security: On November 10, 2006, the date of registration, and the amount of demand for distribution of KRW 000 (the same shall apply to the maximum amount of claims).

2) Plaintiff: The fixed date of August 14, 2008, and the amount of demand for distribution as lease deposit.

00 Won. 00

3) The Defendant Republic of Korea: The statutory due date from January 31, 2010 to June 30, 2010, the amount of demand for distribution of KRW 000 (which relates to the whole of 106 households) and the actual amount of distribution of KRW 000.

4) Defendant Seosan City with a provisional seizure authority: the provisional seizure date September 1, 2008; the provisional seizure amount of KRW 000 (with respect to the whole of 106 households) and the actual amount of dividends of KRW 000.

5) Defendant Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd.: The provisional attachment authority: January 22, 2010 on the provisional attachment date, the provisional attachment amount of KRW 000 (which is related to the whole of 106 households) and the actual amount of dividends of KRW 000.

6) Housing Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. against the defendant of the provisional seizure authority: August 3, 2009; June 22, 2010;

Amount of provisional seizure 00 won (with respect to the whole of 106 households).

7) Defendant Korea Asset Management Corporation: January 25, 201 on the date of provisional seizure, and the amount of provisional seizure in total (106 households).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 8 (including provisional number), the purport of whole pleadings.

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

(a) The party liable to return unjust enrichment;

1) According to the above facts, the Plaintiff, on the basis of the fixed date, shall be paid dividends to the first mutual savings bank, which is the right to collateral security, in preference to the remaining persons having the right to demand a distribution.

2) Therefore, the first mutual savings bank, a mortgagee, at KRW 123,146,568 of the actual amount to be distributed.

If 71,50,00 won, which is a demand for distribution, is deducted, 51,646,568 won will remain, within such scope.

The distribution amount of KRW 50,00,000, which is the whole amount of the demand for distribution, shall be distributed. Since only KRW 000,000 has been distributed in accordance with the instant distribution schedule, the remaining amount that has not been distributed shall be deemed to have been distributed in excess to the Defendants, and may be returned in unjust enrichment.

3) However, Defendant Republic of Korea, who is a taxation right holder, is in the position of preferential repayment compared to the other Defendants, who are general creditors who have no preferential payment right, and the Plaintiff can also recover the shortage of dividends by returning the excess dividend amount to the other Defendants.

4) In other words, if the distribution procedure has been completed normally, the following can be calculated as follows:

A) The actual dividends that Defendant Republic of Korea received with respect to the total sales amount of 106 households are KRW 000, and if this is divided into 106 households, it shall be KRW 000 per household. Of course, since this is an inaccurate calculation premised on the same sales amount of all households, it cannot be readily concluded that Defendant Republic of Korea received 000 won with respect to the apartment of this case. However, on the premise that the sales amount of each household does not appear to have a big difference, even if the sales amount of each household is calculated in proportion to the sales amount of each household, it is deemed that Defendant Republic of Korea received dividends with respect to the apartment of this case among the entire households (the standard amount to determine whether Defendant Republic of Korea should comply with the amount to be distributed in relation to the apartment of this case as seen below).

B) As seen above, even if it is assumed that the Plaintiff received a proper dividend based on the priority order, the remaining amount would be 000 won (=000 won -000 won). The Defendant Republic of Korea has the right to receive preferential reimbursement in preference to the other Defendants, a general creditor who has no preferential right to payment as a tax claim, and thus, the Defendant Republic of Korea is entitled to receive a full payment from 000 won, the remaining amount.

C) In other words, the Defendant’s Republic of Korea that was entitled to a full distribution in a normal distribution proceeding is justified.

Since a dividend has been received on grounds, the amount actually received cannot be deemed as unjust enrichment;

The plaintiff receives unjust enrichment only from the remaining Defendants.

D) However, the Plaintiff’s claim for the return of 000 won, which is the amount divided for the shortage dividends, to the Defendant Republic of Korea as well as the remaining Defendants, is not acceptable. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant Republic of Korea is dismissed.

B. The amount of unjust enrichment of the defendants other than the defendant Republic of Korea

The amount of dividends by each party is KRW 000 in Seosan City; KRW 000 in the case of the Defendant Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd.; KRW 000 in the case of the Defendant Korea Housing Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd.; KRW 000 in the case of the Defendant Korea Asset Management Corporation; KRW 000 in the case of the Defendant Korea Asset Management Corporation; KRW 000 in the case of the Plaintiff’s shortage amount (i.e., KRW 00 in the case of the Plaintiff’s shortage amount; KRW 000 in the case of Seosan City; KRW 000 in the case of the Defendant Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd.; KRW 000 in the case of the Defendant’s Housing Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd.; and KRW 00 in the case of the Defendant Korea Asset Management Corporation

In accordance with the following principles, the Plaintiff’s claim amount is the amount returned by the said Defendants.

A. Accordingly, the Plaintiff is obligated to return unjust enrichment to the Plaintiff, as claimed by the Plaintiff, to pay damages for delay calculated at a rate of 20% per annum from the day after the delivery date of the complaint to the day of complete payment, 000 won for the Defendant Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd., 00 won for the Defendant Korea Housing Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd., and 00 won for the Defendant Korea Asset Management Corporation, from August 17, 2011 to February 5, 2013, which is the date of the instant judgment, to the date of the instant judgment, 5% per annum under the Civil Act until February 5, 2013, and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of complete payment. The Plaintiff asserts that damages for delay should be calculated at a rate of 20% per annum from the day after the delivery date of the complaint

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim is legitimate within the above scope of recognition, so it is so decided as per Disposition.