1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The scope of the trial in this court filed a claim against Defendant B, as stated in the purport of the claim, to refuse any compulsory execution based on the No. 1176 No. 15,032,305 won and damages for delay. The plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant C for a non-permission of any compulsory execution based on the No. 1176 No. 1176 and a claim for a non-permission of any compulsory execution exceeding KRW 5,60,000 for compulsory execution based on the No. 1175’s authentic deed.

The first instance court dismissed all of the claims as to Defendant B, and accepted the claims as to Defendant C’s No. 1176 as to the No. 1176, and all of the remaining claims against the Defendants were dismissed. Accordingly, only the Plaintiff appealed as to the dismissed portion except for the dismissed portion among the part against which he lost.

Accordingly, the scope of the court's trial is limited to the plaintiff's claim for return of unjust enrichment against the defendant B and the claim for objection against the No. 1175 against the defendant C.

2. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 23, 2011, Defendant B borrowed KRW 7,000,00 from Defendant B on the ground of commission made by Defendant B as the obligee himself/herself and the Plaintiff’s agent, and on March 23, 201, the notarial deed No. 401 stating that “the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 7,00,000 from Defendant B on February 11, 2011, but is decided to repay on March 30, 201, but there is no objection even upon immediate compulsory execution if the said monetary obligation is not performed; and on February 24, 2012, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 7,00,000 on February 21, 2012; on March 21, 201, the Plaintiff agreed to repay KRW 237,00,000 on March 23, 200; on March 30, 201, the Plaintiff did not immediately object to compulsory execution.”