1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the plaintiff at the trial does not differ from that of the court of first instance, and the judgment of the court of first instance that rejected the plaintiff's claim even if the submitted evidence is reviewed together with the plaintiff's assertion, is justified.

Therefore, the reasoning for this Court’s reasoning is as follows, given that the reasoning for this case is identical to the reasoning of the first instance judgment except for “the part of dismissal, addition, or deletion” under Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. On the 6th sentence of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part which is dismissed, added, or deleted, the court’s “this court” in the 6th sentence is deemed to be the “Incheon District Court.”

Although the plaintiff's claim was not accepted in both the first instance court and the second instance court, the plaintiff appealed only for the amount of KRW 79,318,210 of the final judgment in the revocation lawsuit of this case and the damages for delay thereof, and the exceeding part, i.e., the portion of the unjust enrichment.

Therefore, since the part exceeding the final judgment amount in the revocation lawsuit of this case is excluded from the scope of adjudication of this court, it is not accepted as to the part excluded from the scope of adjudication.

’를 추가한다. 제1심판결문 제10면 제2행의 ‘따라서’부터 같은 면 제3행의 ‘된다’까지를 ‘따라서 피고가 원고에게 지급하여야 할 환지청산금의 원금은 적어도 이 사건 취소소송에서 확정된 판결금 79,318,210원이 된다’로 고치고, 같은 면 제8행의 ‘연체이율인’을 ‘연체이율 또는 소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법이 정한 연 15%’로 고친다. 제1심판결문 제19면 제1행의 ‘채권양도 및 공탁으로 인한 이 사건 채권의 소멸 여부’를 ‘채권양도로 인한 이 사건 채권의 소멸 여부’로 고치고, 같은 면 제2행의 ‘㈎...