1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

[Claim]

1. Based on the litigation materials and arguments submitted to the appellate court citing the judgment of the court of first instance, the court of first instance has sufficient grounds for admitting the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (such as law, precedents, interpretation and application of legal principles, recognition of facts and facts requiring proof, and determination of issues).

The reasons to be stated by this court are the same as the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following parts or additions. Thus, it shall be cited in the summary under the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. On the 4th page of the judgment of the court of first instance, the term “the completion period of the summary period of distribution” in the 15th page shall be extended to “the completion period of the demand for distribution”.

Part 7 of the judgment of the first instance, part 7 to 17 of the judgment of the court of first instance, "D. The defendant's judgment on defense" in Part 7 to 18 of the "First, according to the evidence above, there is no evidence to recognize" in Part 8 of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows.

“1) First of all, the fact that the Plaintiff’s claim for construction price against C arose when the purport of the entire pleading is added to the facts of recognition of the first instance judgment as cited earlier, and each description of evidence Nos. 3 and 14.

[Plaintiff’s order of payment was finalized upon the Plaintiff’s application for the payment order against C (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2016Ra17556). Contrary to the Defendant’s assertion, there is insufficient evidence to deem that the above payment order was made in collusion with the Plaintiff between the Plaintiff and C. According to each of the evidence Nos. 9-1 and 2, the fact that P, who asserts that the Plaintiff was the actual owner of the instant land on May 30, 2017 during the first instance trial, filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for the return of unjust enrichment against the Defendant on behalf of C (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2017Gahap537041). However, according to the evidence No. 9-1, P claimed in the lawsuit for the return of unjust enrichment in this case, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit for the return of unjust enrichment in lieu of C (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2017Gahap537041).