beta
Text
1. The defendant shall pay 93,774,670 won to the plaintiff and 12% per annum from January 21, 2020 to the day of complete payment.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Defendant brought a lawsuit against the Plaintiff’s first-friendly deceased C (hereinafter “the deceased”) seeking a loan of KRW 500 million from the Seoul Central District Court 2005Gahap9659, and won the lawsuit, and the judgment on December 6, 2005 (hereinafter “the final judgment of this case”) became final and conclusive.
B. On June 17, 2006, the Deceased died, and on September 18, 2014, the Plaintiff reported to the Seoul Family Court an inheritance limited recognition and accepted on November 21, 2014.
C. On November 13, 2014, the Defendant received a seizure and collection order (hereinafter “collection order of this case”) from the Seoul Western District Court 2014TTTT15024 on the medical expenses claim that the Plaintiff had against the National Health Insurance Corporation by using the instant final judgment as the title of execution, and collected KRW 6,545,420 as of December 24, 2014, and collected KRW 87,229,250 as of December 26, 2014, and collected KRW 93,774,670 in total.
After that, on February 9, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an objection to the enforcement of the above seizure collection execution based on the collection order of the instant case, by compulsory execution against the Plaintiff’s inherent property, and was cited as Seoul Western District Court D on February 9, 2018, and on March 5, 2018, the seizure collection order of the instant case was revoked.
[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. As long as the collection order of this case was revoked for the foregoing reasons, the defendant's money between the collection execution year was lost by unjust enrichment, and thus, the defendant is obliged to return it to the plaintiff.
B. The defendant asserts that regardless of whether the collection order has been revoked, the defendant is a legitimate creditor, and thus, the defendant does not have a duty to return unjust enrichment.
However, even if the final judgment of this case, which is the claim against the deceased or its executive title, is rendered, the plaintiff, who is the inheritor who made the qualified acceptance, is not inherited property.