1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff has a claim for the settlement of the amount equivalent to KRW 102,50,000 against the defendant according to the Jung-gu District Court High Court Decision 2014 Ma51084, 2015 Ma70358 (Counterclaim), and Seoul High Court Decision 2015Na204239 (Counterclaim), 2015Na2042405 (Counterclaim), which is the appellate court (hereinafter "previous judgment"), and C has a claim for the return of unjust enrichment equivalent to KRW 102,50,000 against the defendant. Since C is currently insolvent, C is entitled to the creditor's subrogation right under Article 404 (1) of the Civil Act, and C is entitled to the return of unjust enrichment equivalent to KRW 102,500,000 on behalf of the defendant.

2. First of all, as to whether C’s claim for return of unjust enrichment amounting to KRW 102,50,000 against the Defendant, a subrogation claim, exists, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge the existence of a claim for return of unjust enrichment amounting to KRW 102,50,000 against C, a subrogation claim, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, the following circumstances, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of evidence Nos. 2-1, 2, and 1-1, 1-2, and 80 of the evidence No. 2-1, i.e., the Plaintiff asserted to the effect that the subject who entered into the profit distribution agreement of this case is the Defendant, but the subject who entered into the profit distribution agreement with the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff in the previous judgment was considered C, and under the premise that C was paid KRW 380 million in the sale price of the forest of this case by 1/2, 190 million in the previous judgment, under the premise that C was paid with the sale price of the forest of this case by 1/2,000 in the above sale price of the forest of this case, and KRW 1,250,000 in the amount calculated by deducting KRW 1,50,000 in the loans of the forest of this case from the Plaintiff, the Defendant did not have objective evidence as to C’s unjust enrichment.