1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Facts of recognition; and

2. The reasoning for the court’s argument on this part is as follows: (a) the third and sixth acts of the first instance judgment “ August 5, 2018” is “ August 6, 2018”; and (b) the second to fourth acts of the second to sixth acts of the first instance judgment, except where the second and fourth acts of the first instance judgment are applied to “the allegations and judgments of the parties” and the next acts of the Plaintiff as “2. Plaintiff’s assertion”; and (c) thus, the second to fourth acts of the fourth and sixth acts of the first instance judgment is cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. The execution of distribution pursuant to the distribution schedule established by the relevant legal principles is not to be confirmed by the substantive legal rights. Therefore, in cases where a creditor who is liable to receive distribution fails to receive distribution and receives distribution, the creditor who did not receive the distribution has the right to claim the return of unjust enrichment against the person who received the distribution even though he did not receive the distribution regardless of whether he/she raised an objection to the distribution (see Supreme Court Decision 99Da26948, Mar. 13, 2001). In cases of the so-called infringement unjust enrichment seeking the return of unjust enrichment on the grounds that he/she obtained a profit by infringing another person's property rights, etc., the creditor who received the distribution must prove

(Supreme Court Decision 2017Da37324 Decided January 24, 2018). 4. Determination

A. Determination as to the assertion of non-existence of claims 1) A No. 4 (including additional numbers)

hereinafter the same shall apply.

(2) The Defendant agreed to lend KRW 5% per annum (payment on December 13, 2016) between C and C on December 13, 2016, and KRW 300,000,000 as a year from the date of repayment, and receive shares of Co., Ltd. as security by C (hereinafter referred to as “instant loan agreement”) in addition to the purport of the entire pleadings as set forth in the evidence Nos. 8-2, 4, and 5 (hereinafter referred to as “instant loan agreement”).

In addition, the Defendant’s total sum of KRW 269,00,000 on the same day, and KRW 300,000 on December 14, 2016 on the following day, shall be 300,000.