1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

Seoul Eastern District Court 2014Ka6110.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in the reasoning of the judgment is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in this case is identical to that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for those determined in paragraph 2. As such, the reasoning of the judgment shall be cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of

[Supplementary or additional parts] The 7th 12th e.g., the 7th 12th e.g., the 13th e., the transfer is deleted.

The 8th 13th 13th am "Plaintiff" in the first instance court is called "Defendant."

The 12th 17th 12th 17th son of the first instance court’s decision “the Plaintiff is the Defendant.”

The following judgments shall be added next to the 13th judgment of the first instance.

“If compulsory execution based on executive titles has been completed as a whole and the creditor has received satisfaction, there is no benefit to seek non-performance of compulsory execution by filing an objection (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Da52489, Apr. 25, 1997). Such legal doctrine likewise applies to a lawsuit seeking objection against the pertinent part, in a case where compulsory execution has been completed only with respect to a part of a claim under executive titles, and the creditor has received satisfaction (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da82043, May 29, 2014). The Defendant’s payment order based on the instant payment order in this case should not be deemed to have received dividends of KRW 135,216,767, May 23, 2016, and KRW 12,713,367, a total sum of KRW 247,93134, Mar. 13, 2016.

A person shall be appointed.

C. The attachment and assignment order of a claim becomes final and conclusive as part of a compulsory execution against a monetary claim based on the executive title based on the judgment on the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment.