1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On April 5, 2013, the Defendant lent the instant loan amounting to C at KRW 190 million (hereinafter “instant loan”) with the maturity of repayment on July 4, 2013 and interest of KRW 36% per annum.

(hereinafter “instant contract”). B.

In order to secure the instant loan, the Defendant created a right to collateral security (hereinafter “the instant collateral security”) with four lots of land located in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, Seoul-do (E orchard 2139 square meters, F forest and forest land 1,507 square meters, G 149 square meters, H orchard 354 square meters), and Ulsan-gu I apartment 301 square meters as joint collateral (hereinafter “the instant collateral security”). The Defendant created a right to collateral security (hereinafter “the instant collateral security”) with the maximum debt amount of KRW 250 million with the maximum debt amount of KRW 301 square meters as joint collateral. The Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-do, J. 250 square meters as well as its ground and KRW 474 square meters as well as its ground housing as joint collateral (hereinafter “the instant collateral security”).

C. On November 19, 2014, the Defendant applied for an auction of real estate rent (hereinafter “the instant first auction”) with the Ulsan District Court L, based on the instant collateral security. On November 19, 2014, the Defendant received dividends of KRW 250 million out of the total amount of KRW 19 million and interest KRW 92,761,643, which is the amount of credit reported by the Defendant, and the total amount of KRW 282,761,643, which is KRW 282,761,643.

After the commencement of the procedure for the compulsory auction of real estate (hereinafter “instant secondary auction”) on the land, such as the four parcels located in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, Ulsan District Court M. The Defendant participated in the said auction procedure and received dividends of KRW 83,141,169 on September 24, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 5 (including branch numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant received all of the loans of this case at the first auction of this case, but received additional dividends of KRW 83,141,169 at the second auction of this case.

Therefore, the amount received from the second auction of this case is unjust enrichment, and it is subject to the second auction of this case.