All
| TITLE | Supreme Court en banc Decision 2014Da206983 Decided July 18, 2019【Unjust Enrichment】 [full Text] |
|---|---|
| Summary | |
|
[1] In a case where a creditor entitled to the right to a distribution did not receive his/her share of distributions, and instead other creditors who have no right received the said share of distributions, whether the creditor eligible to receive a distribution may file a claim for return of unjust enrichment against other creditors who received distributions, irrespective of whether the said creditor raised an objection to the distribution or whether the distribution schedule was fixed (affirmative) [2] In the case where: (a) real estate auction proceedings were held to exercise a security right; (b) the entire claim amount was distributed to Bank A (second creditor), which held a floating sum mortgage, and only a partial claim amount was distributed to general creditors including the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund and Company B (sixth creditor); (c) Company B, which was present on the date of distribution, raised an objection regarding the dividend distributed to Bank A, filed a demurrer against distribution against Bank A, and received the entire dividend amount that had been distributed to Bank A in accordance with the decision recommending settlement that became final and conclusive; (d) thereafter, the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund, which had been present on the date of distribution but had not raised an objection, filed a claim for return of unjust enrichment against Company B for pro rata distribution of the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund’s claim amount from the dividend Company B received, the court holding that Company B shall return unjust enrichment from the dividend it received, which is equivalent to pro rata distribution of the amount of the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund’s claim, to the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund |
|
