1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendant, as unjust enrichment, was liable to return the above amount and to pay damages for delay to the Plaintiff, on the ground that the Defendant received 86,277,539 won in the same order as the Plaintiff, even though he did not have any claim against D on the date of distribution of distribution procedure C in the Suwon District Court.

2. On the basis of the judgment, the evidence presented by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the Defendant received dividends of KRW 86,277,539 without any authority on the aforementioned date of distribution, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit without any need to further examine it.

(O) In light of the purport of Gap evidence No. 1 and the whole arguments, the defendant applied for the seizure and collection order of claim amounting to KRW 345,041,096 from the above court on February 28, 2013 as to D's claim for the expropriation compensation claim against the Korea Land and Housing Corporation of Suwon District Court as the executory exemplification of the judgment of the Seoul Central District Court 2007Gahap48900 of loan case against D, which is an executory exemplification of the loan case.