1. All appeals by the defendant (appointed party) and the defendant are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant (Appointed Party).

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following determination as to the part on which the Defendants asserted as the grounds for appeal by this court, and thus, it is consistent with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Supplementary judgment

A. The gist of the grounds for appeal is only relative effect between the parties concerned, and the Defendants and the designated parties have no reason to be affected by the amount of dividends in accordance with the judgment of the other creditors, so long as the court of execution which distributed the amount of dividends of KRW 2,059,286 to the Plaintiff, the correction of the distribution schedule of KRW 2,059,286 was appropriate. On the contrary, the judgment of the first instance ordering the Defendants and the designated parties to return unjust enrichment on the premise that the Plaintiff was in a position to have received dividends of KRW

B. Distribution according to the distribution schedule which became final and conclusive does not confirm the right under the substantive law, and in case where a creditor who is liable to receive a distribution fails to receive a distribution and receives a distribution, the creditor who did not receive the distribution can exercise the right to claim the return of unjust enrichment against the person who received the distribution even if he did not receive the distribution (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da26948, Mar. 13, 2001). The plaintiff is entitled to receive the distribution prior to the defendants and the designated parties who are provisional seizure creditors under the substantive law, and the status of the provisional seizure creditors are equal to that of the substantive law. Accordingly, the defendants and the designated parties are liable to pay each amount stated in the purport of the claim, which is calculated in proportion to the amount of 30 million won which the plaintiff should have received as the return of unjust enrichment.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's respective claims against the defendants and the designated parties are reasonable, and all of them should be accepted.

The judgment of the court of first instance.