1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The Seoul Eastern District Court on November 11, 2014.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this part of the basic facts is the same as that of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. On October 30, 2014, the Plaintiff asserts that (1) whether the obligation is extinguished due to deposit made by deposit made by October 30, 2014, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 160,291,010 for the return of unjust enrichment with respect to the construction of Grandland, which exceeds the 162,179,798 won on October 30, 2014, the said obligation was extinguished by the validity of repayment made by deposit made by the deposit made by October 30, 2014.

The deposit for the execution of the third obligor is a requirement for the concurrence of seizure of the seized claim. In this case, the amount to be deposited by the third obligor is the total amount of the obligation to be deposited. This legal doctrine does not change in cases where the third obligor deposits the execution in order to prevent compulsory execution based on the final judgment of the case for the collection claim, in cases where some execution creditors have obtained a collection order after some execution creditors have obtained a collection order with respect to a part of the claims subject to seizure under the concurrence of seizure, and the winning of the lawsuit for the collection claim becomes final and conclusive (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da22700, Jul. 22, 2004).

Therefore, as to whether the Plaintiff deposited the full amount of the obligation on October 30, 2014, and the obligation for return of unjust enrichment is a debt with no fixed deadline, and thus, the obligation will result in delay from the date following the date when the obligee was requested to discharge the obligation, and thus, the collection order only grants the creditor the right to collect the claim against the third obligor, and thus, the third obligor cannot be held liable for delay due to the fact that the third obligor was served with the collection order. However, after the issuance of the collection order, the claim for the collection amount was received from the execution creditor.