beta
Text
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.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the plaintiff makes a supplementary or supplementary decision with respect to the part on which the plaintiff contests as the grounds for appeal as follows. As such, it is acceptable to accept
2. Additional or supplementary judgment
A. The summary of the grounds of appeal 1) In a case where the right to preferential repayment of taxes on various real estate owned by the taxpayer is exercised, the provisions on joint mortgage shall apply by analogy. If the Defendant requested delivery at an accurate statutory date and received dividends in the public sale procedure for the land Nos. 1 and 2, the Defendant did not infringe the Plaintiff’s right to dividends on the land No. 3, a subordinate mortgagee, and as such, the Defendant violated the Plaintiff’s right to dividends on the land No. 3 by claiming delivery by mistakenly stating the statutory due date, the Defendant is liable for tort liability. 2) Although the Defendant notified the statutory due date in the public sale procedure for the land No. 1 and 2, and H had a claim for return of unjust enrichment on the land No. 1 and 2, and notified the statutory due date in the public sale procedure for the land No. 3 of this case, thereby making a double profit by receiving dividends prior to the Plaintiff, this constitutes unjust enrichment,
3) In the absence of negligence by the Defendant, the Defendant received dividends from H in KRW 297,513,310 (i.e., KRW 81,641,310, KRW 215,872,00, which was paid by H in the land Nos. 1 and 2 of this case (i.e., KRW 574,616,510, which was paid by the Defendant for the public sale of the land No. 3 of this case. In the public sale of the land No. 574,616,510, which was claimed by the Defendant, the amount of KRW 277,103,200, which was paid by H in the land No. 1 and 2 of this case, after subtracting KRW 297,513,310, which was paid by the Defendant from the land No. 3 of this case, the Defendant exceeded the said amount.