1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

[Claim]

The court's explanation of this case is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the case's 6th to 12th 7th tier of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, the court's explanation of this case is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Judgment of the court below in light of the above legal principles and the above facts revealed that the plaintiff clearly claimed only part of the claim for return of unjust enrichment against the defendant in the previous suit of this case. The purport of "the extension of the claim amount after the claim becomes final and conclusive based on the name or objective data of the defendant," which the plaintiff stated in the prior suit of this case, is merely to determine the scope of the plaintiff's claim for return of unjust enrichment against the defendant through the order of the defendant, and it does not necessarily mean that the plaintiff's claim for return of unjust enrichment against the defendant should be decided in the prior suit of this case. Thus, the institution of the prior suit of this case is effective only within the scope of the claim for return of unjust enrichment which the plaintiff explicitly claims against the defendant, and the interruption of prescription becomes effective only within the scope of the claim for return of unjust enrichment against the defendant. The plaintiff's claim for return of unjust enrichment against the defendant of this case cannot be seen as the whole interruption of prescription against the plaintiff's claim for return of unjust enrichment of this case.