1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of the court of first instance is as follows: "In addition, the public auction proceeds distribution against the defendant is valid unless it is serious even if there is any defect as an administrative disposition, and even before the public auction proceeds distribution disposition loses its validity by administrative litigation procedure," the plaintiff's claim of this case can be seen as a claim for return of unjust enrichment from a civil lawsuit even before the public auction proceeds distribution disposition becomes null and void by administrative litigation procedure. Further, the plaintiff's claim of this case can be seen as a claim for return of unjust enrichment from the public auction proceeds that the plaintiff should have received under the premise that the public auction proceeds distribution disposition, which is an administrative disposition, should have been distributed to the plaintiff by the defendant. The issue of whether the public auction proceeds distribution disposition becomes null and void by the defendant, and the claim for return of unjust enrichment like this case can be claimed directly as a civil lawsuit even before the public auction proceeds distribution disposition becomes null and void by administrative litigation procedure, and the judgment of the court below is added to "Nos. 47-4, 8, 14-14 and 14-14 of the following evidence.

④ The business status (A9) submitted by C Co., Ltd. while applying for a loan to the Plaintiff was prepared by the Defendant, and the above business status is written by the Defendant as the husband of E and the principal shareholder of C Co., Ltd.

⑤ The Defendant listened to the lawsuit that the management of C&A is aggravated and urged to repay KRW 10,00,000 of the remaining loans to E. The Defendant entered into the above lease agreement with the Defendant to pay the lease deposit amount of KRW 15,00,000 on the ground that he did not have any money for E and the Defendant would repay his life in the instant building.