1. The plaintiff's claim that is changed in exchange in the trial is dismissed.

2. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation in this part is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. The plaintiff's assertion (the ground of claim changed in exchange from the trial) received the collection order of this case as to the claim of this case.

However, since the claim of this case is identical to the claim of this case, the defendant cannot assert the effect of acquiring the claim of this case from AG to the plaintiff.

If so, among the dividends against the defendant, the amount of 122,215,495 won against the plaintiff's AG should be distributed to the plaintiff, but the defendant was erroneously distributed to the defendant, so it shall be deemed that the defendant unjust enrichment.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to transfer the right to claim a dividend equivalent to the above amount to the plaintiff for the return and notify the debtor of the transfer to the Republic of Korea.

3. Since the execution of distribution according to the distribution schedule that became final and conclusive does not confirm the right under substantive law, in a case where a creditor who is to receive a distribution and who is unable to receive a distribution receives a distribution without receiving the distribution, the creditor who has not received the distribution has the right to claim the return of unjust enrichment against the person who received the distribution even though he/she is not able to receive the distribution without having any objection to the distribution (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da26948, Mar. 13, 2001). However, in a case where the distribution creditor who requires the demand for distribution fails to make a lawful demand for distribution, even if he/she has the right to claim the preferential payment under substantive law, he/she cannot receive the distribution from the successful bid price, and thus, it cannot be deemed that there is

Supreme Court Decision 2005Da14595 Decided August 25, 2005, Supreme Court Decision 2005Da14595 Decided February 25, 1997