All appeals by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The summary of the case and the facts premised on the case

A. The summary of the case is the case where: (a) the Plaintiffs, the creditors of D, who leased the store from the Defendant, filed a claim against D, such as the delivery of the store on the ground of the expiration of the lease term; and (b) the Defendant filed a claim against D for return of unjust enrichment against D [Seoul Eastern District Court 2010Dahap13792, 2010Gahap21687, 2087 (Counterclaim)] to which D and the Defendant received a seizure and assignment order of the claim regarding the claim for the settlement amount to be received from D in accordance with the judicial reconciliation established between D and the Defendant; and (c) the Defendant sought the full payment of the settlement amount (Plaintiff A: 29,831,581, Plaintiff B: 289,534,246) and its delay damages.

The judgment of the first instance dismissed all the plaintiffs' claims, and the plaintiffs appealed against them.

나. 전제된 사실관계 【증거】갑1, 2, 4의 각 1, 2, 갑3, 5, 을1, 2, 3, 을5의 1과 변론 전체의 취지 ⑴ 피고와 D 사이의 소송에서 재판상화해의 성립 ㈎ 백화점, 대형 슈퍼마켓 등의 설치와 운영, 부동산 임대사업을 목적으로 하는 피고는 1999. 12. 무렵 D에게 서울 송파구 E의 점포(F호)를 임대차기간 1999. 12. 23.부터 2000. 11. 30.까지로 정하여 임대한 다음, 1년 단위로 임대차계약을 갱신하였으며, 2008. 12. 4. D과 임대보증금을 2,500만 원, 월차임을 1,772,000원(부가가치세 별도), 임대기간을 2009. 1. 1.부터 2009. 12. 31.까지 1년 동안으로 정하여 임대차계약을 갱신하였다.

On October 19, 2009 and November 30, 2009, prior to the expiration of the lease term, the Defendant notified D of the expiration of the lease term on December 31, 2009 and that D did not intend to renew the contract.

㈏ 피고는 2010. 8. 4. 기간 만료 이후에도 점포를 인도하지 않는 D을 상대로 임대차종료를 이유로 점포인도와 차임과 관리비 상당 부당이득의 반환 등을 구하는 소를 제기하였고, 그 소송절차에서...