beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s order to pay unjust enrichment against the Plaintiff is authentic in Seoul Central District Court Decision 2015Hu269367.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) is a company established on December 11, 2012 for the purpose of purchasing bonds, managing purchased assets, distributing assets, etc., and the Plaintiff is a special purpose company established on May 19, 2014 for the purpose of managing, operating, and disposing of securitization assets under the Asset-Backed Securitization Act (hereinafter “Asset-Backed Securitization Act”).
B. On October 30, 2015, the Defendant concluded a contract for the acquisition of each claim between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff on May 22, 2014, and paid KRW 81,000,000 as part of the transfer price, and paid KRW 82,00,000 as part of the transfer price. On August 19, 2015, the Defendant concluded a contract for the purchase of a claim with the right to collateral security (right to collateral security) and paid KRW 81,40,000 as part of the purchase price. Since the Plaintiff breached his/her contractual obligation and expressed his/her intent to cancel the contract on the ground thereof, the Plaintiff was obligated to return KRW 244,40,000 received from the Defendant due to the cancellation of the contract, and filed an application against the Plaintiff for a payment order with the Seoul Central District Court for unjust enrichment return as above.
C. On November 18, 2015, the above court issued a payment order stating that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant the amount of KRW 244,400,000, and the amount calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from the day after the original copy of the payment order was served to the day of complete payment, and the expenses for demand procedure,” and the said payment order was finalized on December 8, 2015.
(hereinafter “instant payment order”). D.
From January 7, 2016 to February 3, 2016, the Defendant received a collection order, based on the original copy of the instant payment order, from January 7, 2016 to February 3, 2016, for the deposit claim against a new bank that the Plaintiff transferred the provisional seizure to the original seizure.
(Seoul Central District Court 2015TTT 106838, 2016TT 10000, 2016TT 10005). [The grounds for recognition] of the absence of dispute, and the number of evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4, respectively.