1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. On January 10, 1993, the Plaintiff loaned 67,000,000 won to C at a rate of 24% per annum.

(hereinafter “instant loan”). (b)

On April 15, 2010, the Defendant approved that C has a debt of KRW 918,00,000 to the Defendant, and drafted a notarial deed of debt repayment contract (No. 257, 2010, No. 257, No. 2010, No. 2010, No. 2010, No. 2010, Apr. 20, 2010, hereinafter referred to as the “notarial deed of this case”).

C. On September 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for the seizure of corporeal movables owned by C based on the authentic copy of the judgment in the Ulsan District Court case No. 2002Da14531 regarding the instant loan claim to the Ulsan District Court E, and the Defendant also filed an application for the seizure of corporeal movables owned by C based on the instant notarial deed, and the seizure of C-owned corporeal movables was concurrent upon the application for the seizure of corporeal movables to F with the Ulsan District Court.

E. The distribution procedure was conducted through the Ulsan District Court G with respect to the deposit of KRW 5,000,000 for C-owned corporeal movables (hereinafter “instant distribution procedure”).

On June 25, 2018, the above court opened a date of distribution and distributes KRW 3,960,927 out of KRW 4,251,184, which is the actual amount to be distributed after deducting the deposit amount of the sale price and the execution cost from the interest thereof, to the defendant who is the seizure authority, and distributed the remaining KRW 290,257 to the plaintiff who is the seizure authority.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, 5, and 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment as to the plaintiff

A. The defendant's claim against C based on the notarial deed of this case by the plaintiff is merely a claim based on a false conspiracy between the defendant and C.

Therefore, the Defendant should distribute to the Plaintiff the instant dividend procedure, but the Defendant should return the amount of KRW 3,960,927, which was unfairly distributed by the instant notarial deed, to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

B. Determination 1-related legal principles.