1. The plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim added by this court are all dismissed.

2. After an appeal is filed.

1. The reasoning of this court’s judgment citing the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for dismissal or addition as follows. Thus, it is citing it as it is by the main sentence of Article 420 of the

2. On the third 10 pages of the judgment of the court of first instance, the following conjunctive arguments shall be added to the dismissal or addition.

D. If the agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not exist, the Defendant, without any legal cause, shall gain profit equivalent to the above dividends, and as such, the Defendant is obligated to return the amount equivalent to the above dividends to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment, the Defendant is obligated to return the amount equivalent to the above dividends to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment. The part of the judgment of the first instance judgment stating the Plaintiff’s assertion between the third second to fourth to fourth to fourth is as follows.

A. According to the reasoning of the claim on the payment of dividends under the instant agreement, the Plaintiff may be found to have borne each of the costs of filing a request for auction on the Youngcheon Land and Gohap Land, and the witness M of the first instance trial and the Defendant testified to the effect that there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

However, in light of the following circumstances that are acknowledged by the respective statements in Gap's evidence Nos. 2, 4, 9, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 7, and 10 through 12, and the purport of the testimony and the entire pleadings by the witness L of the first instance court, each of the above testimony by the witness H and the witness M of the first instance court is difficult to believe, and the above facts of recognition and the evidence submitted by the plaintiff are insufficient to recognize the fact that the plaintiff and the defendant entered into the instant agreement, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion based on this premise is without merit without further review.

① On July 7, 2015, the Plaintiff: (a) repaid part of the debt owed to E; and (b) applied for auction after being transferred the instant right to collateral security.