1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: “Defendant L” of the first instance, “Defendant L” of the first instance and “5,00,000 won” of the fifth and fifth and sixth acts are as “60,485,000 won”; and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, except for the Plaintiff’s additional assertion made by this court, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. As to the claim for return of unjust enrichment

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff deposited 120,970,000 won with the principal and interest of the judgment based on the preceding lawsuit to D, etc., the Defendants obtained benefits from failure to repay 200,000,000 won of the secured debt of the lien to D, etc., and thereby, incurred damages equivalent to KRW 120,970,000 to the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally obligated to return to the Plaintiff KRW 60,485,00,00, equivalent to the Plaintiff’s 1/2 of the above damages, as unjust enrichment.

B. We examine whether the Defendants obtained unjust enrichment due to the deposit of the Plaintiff’s repayment.

According to the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 6 and the entire pleadings, 120,970,000 won, which the plaintiff deposited with D, etc. according to the judgment of the preceding lawsuit, is not a repayment on behalf of D, etc. for the secured debt of the right of retention, but a repayment on behalf of D, etc. by D, etc., and the plaintiff, etc. under the right of retention, while knowing that D, etc. is proceeding with the auction procedure for the loan of this case, it is recognized that the plaintiff was deprived of possession of D, etc., thereby compensating for damages caused to D, etc. by committing a tort

Therefore, due to the deposit of the Plaintiff’s repayment, it cannot be said that the Defendants obtained benefits from failure to repay the above debt to D, etc., and the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants shall be dismissed as it is without merit.

The judgment of the first instance shall be this.