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 reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the underlying facts is as follows: (a) except where “2,190,000,000 won” of two pages 12 of the judgment of the court of first instance is deemed “2,195,00,000 won”, and thus, it is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance; and (b) accordingly, this part shall be cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s main defense of safety

A. The Defendant asserts that the right to claim the return of unjust enrichment, which the Plaintiff seeks as the lawsuit of this case, cannot be exercised without resorting to the bankruptcy procedure, since the Plaintiff’s right to claim the return of unjust enrichment cannot be exercised without resorting to the bankruptcy procedure, and the lawsuit of this case is unlawful.

However, any property claim arising from a cause before the bankruptcy is declared against the debtor shall be a bankruptcy claim, and any bankruptcy claim shall not be exercised without resorting to the bankruptcy procedure. However, [the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “Rehabilitation Act”)] is a bankruptcy claim.

() Articles 423 and 424 of the instant claim for restitution of unjust enrichment claimed by the Plaintiff is related to the money paid and distributed on February 11, 2015, which was after the date of adjudication of bankruptcy against B (the September 7, 2012), and thus, it is insufficient to deem that the principal cause of the claim was preserved before the declaration of bankruptcy (see Supreme Court Decision 201Da84359, Nov. 29, 2012). As such, the Plaintiff, instead of going through bankruptcy proceedings, may exercise the right to claim restitution of unjust enrichment by the instant lawsuit.

Therefore, the defendant's main defense is without merit.

B. The assertion that the existence of the rehabilitation security right confirmed in the rehabilitation procedure of this case cannot be asserted, and in the case where the plaintiff denied the existence of the rehabilitation security right itself which was confirmed in the rehabilitation procedure of this case and sought money from the plaintiff as unjust enrichment, the defendant is about the building of this case in the rehabilitation procedure of this case.