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. Basic facts

A. The procedure for compulsory auction was initiated for the real estate owned A (Se-gu, Seo-gu, Daejeon, and 2 lots of land C, No. 1101)

(Seoul District Court D). (b)

On May 14, 2014, the auction court prepared a distribution schedule, and the amount of claims of the creditors demanding distribution and the details of distribution related thereto are as shown in the attached Table.

C. The Defendant filed a lawsuit of demurrer against the distribution against the heir E of the secondary distribution right holder, ② Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. (former Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd.) and ③ the fourth distribution right holder Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. (Korean Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd.) (Seoul District Court Decision 2014Da20469). On March 31, 2015, the court rendered the judgment that “The amount of dividends against E out of the above distribution schedule KRW 50,00,00,00 for dividends to E, KRW 81,957 for Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. (Korean Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd.) and KRW 2,83,390 for dividends to the Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. (Korean Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd.) and KRW 39,593,244 for the Defendant shall be corrected as KRW 93,238,591, respectively, and the judgment became final and conclusive around that time.”

On April 28, 2015, the distribution schedule was revised on April 28, 2015, stating that “E, Korea Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd., and Korea Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd., delete the amount of dividends and distribute the amount of KRW 93,238,591 to the Defendant”

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap Nos. 5 and 6, the entry of evidence No. 1, and the purport of whole pleading

2. The parties' assertion;

A. The plaintiff's argument was that the defendant received additional dividends of 53,645,347 won compared to the existing dividends through a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution. The above additional dividends should be equally distributed to the defendant, the plaintiff, and F, who are the creditors demanding distribution in the same order.

Therefore, among the above additional dividends, the Plaintiff sought restitution of unjust enrichment against the Defendant regarding the share to be distributed to the Plaintiff.

B. The creditor demanding distribution who did not file a lawsuit of demurrer against the Defendant 1.