1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on the facts and the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is that “12,00,000 won” under Section 20 of the judgment of the court of first instance is “13,00,000 won” and “1. Basic Facts” and “2. The grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the case where “13,00,000 won” are “1.

A. Since the Plaintiff’s assertion is the same as that of the part of the “Plaintiff’s assertion,” it is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. Determination

A. When a judgment on the merits of a lawsuit of demurrer against a distribution filed by the creditor who has res judicata becomes final and conclusive, res judicata becomes effective in the judgment on the existence of substantive right to receive dividends as to the dividend amount raised by the creditor. In a case where the party who has received the judgment on the merits against the lawsuit of demurrer against the distribution in the lawsuit of demurrer against the distribution files a lawsuit seeking the return thereof against the other party on the grounds that the amount of dividends established by the judgment on the merits became final and conclusive after the judgment on the lawsuit of demurrer against the distribution became final and conclusive, the existence of the right to receive dividends determined by the judgment on the merits of the lawsuit of demurrer against the distribution becomes a prior question in determining whether the right to claim a return of unjust enrichment exists in the judgment on the merits of the lawsuit of demurrer against the distribution, and the parties cannot make any other judgment

(See Supreme Court Decision 9Da3501 delivered on January 21, 2000). The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit of demurrer against the Defendant regarding the amount distributed to the Defendant among the instant distribution schedule, but the judgment against the Defendant became final and conclusive, as seen earlier. As such, the Plaintiff and the Defendant determined that they have the right to receive substantive dividends to the Defendant regarding the amount distributed to the Defendant under the instant distribution schedule. As such, res judicata effect has occurred to the judgment that the Defendant had the right to receive substantive dividends.

Therefore, with respect to the existence of the defendant's right to receive dividends, the plaintiff cannot make any assertion different from the judgment on the merits of the lawsuit of demurrer against distribution, so there is no substantive right to receive dividends to the defendant.