1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The following facts may be acknowledged as either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 4, and evidence Nos. 7 to 10.

On June 1, 2015, the company, which is the creditor of the B, filed an application for the commencement of compulsory auction with the Jung-gu District Court Goyang Branch D on June 2, 2015 with respect to C Apartment 1103, 1502 (hereinafter “instant apartment”). On June 2, 2015, the company, which is the creditor of the B, applied for the commencement of compulsory auction against the instant apartment.

B. In July 2015, the Defendant applied for a provisional attachment of the instant apartment with the above amount claimed, upon filing an application with B for a payment order seeking a loan or reimbursement amount of KRW 372,940,000 against B, and around August 19, 2015, the provisional attachment of the instant apartment was completed on August 19, 2015 by the Jung-gu District Court 2015Kadan50279, and the said payment order became final and conclusive around that time.

C. On February 23, 2016, at the auction procedure with respect to the instant apartment, the distribution schedule was formulated to distribute KRW 171,383,963 (100%) to a limited liability company specializing in EP 4-backed securitization, a mortgagee, the right to demand a distribution (payment order) and KRW 82,211,076 (19.9%) to the Defendant, the right to demand a distribution (payment order) and KRW 49,042,438 (19.9%) to the limited liability company specializing in EP-backed securitization, the applicant creditor, in the second order.

On the other hand, on January 22, 2016, the Plaintiff acquired a claim against B from a limited liability company specialized in the C&C securitization from a limited liability company specialized in C&C.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. Although there was no claim, such as loans, etc. that the defendant alleged by the plaintiff against B, the defendant received in the auction procedure concerning the apartment of this case as a creditor of the apartment of this case, and thus, the defendant shall return the amount distributed to the plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

B. In a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution, the grounds for objection against distribution are relevant.