2. After an appeal is filed.

The court's explanation on this part is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore cites it as it is by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Plaintiff’s assertion

The instant joint agreement between the Plaintiff and B on the exercise of the right of subrogation on the preserved claim and the obligee’s subrogation was null and void pursuant to Article 8(1) and (2) of the instant joint agreement. Accordingly, B is obligated to return the Plaintiff’s unjust enrichment of KRW 1,00,000,000, which was paid by the Plaintiff pursuant to the instant joint agreement.

In order to preserve the above claim for return of unjust enrichment against insolvent B, the Plaintiff sought payment against the Defendant by acting in subrogation of the following rights against the Defendant:

피대위채권 이 사건 양수약정상 원상회복채권 (제1주위적 청구원인) 피고는 이 사건 사업의 공동시행사로서 만덕대전타워팰리스와 함께 이 사건 양수약정의 계약당사자로서의 책임을 부담한다.

The acquisition agreement of this case lost its effect in accordance with Article 5 of the acquisition agreement of this case due to the failure to implement the agreement within two months from the date of conclusion.

Therefore, the Defendant is liable to return KRW 659,123,287 paid by B to implement the acquisition agreement of this case (i.e., KRW 212,812,129, and KRW 446,311,158, which was paid directly to the financial institution under the name of the Defendant) as a performance of duty to restore the original status following the invalidation of the acquisition agreement of this case.

조합원인 피고에 대한 채권 (제2주위적 청구원인) 피고, 만덕대전타워팰리스는 이 사건 사업에 관한 공동시행사로서 민법상 조합관계에 있다.

이 사건 양수약정의 무효에 따른 원상회복의무는 조합원 전원에 대하여 상행위가 되는 조합채무에 해당하므로, 피고가 만덕대전타워팰리스와 연대하여 위 659,123,287원을 반환할 의무가 있다.

The defendant shall have the right to return unjust enrichment (the primary ground for claim).