2. The case in which this Court applies for the suspension of compulsory execution to Busan District Court 2015 Chicago10122.

Even if there is a fact of lending the name or lending the name to the defendant, it is insufficient to recognize that there was bad faith or gross negligence to the defendant, each statement of Gap evidence Nos. 27 through 30 (including a Serial number) and D's testimony of the witness witness of the trial of the trial of the trial of the trial of the trial of the trial of the trial of the trial of the court of the trial of the trial of the defendant (in accordance with each statement of Gap evidence No. 5-1, Gap evidence No. 9, and evidence No. 14-3, it seems that D's investigation of the trial of the trial of the trial of the party to be a factory building on the land owned by the plaintiff (Gimpo

) Each of the representatives of KK Co., Ltd., who partially leased the Plaintiff or B, shall be dismissed, and the statement is accepted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, inasmuch as the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is the same as that of the judgment, except for the fact that “five percent per annum prescribed by the Civil Act” in Article 6 of the judgment of the first instance is “six percent per annum prescribed by the Commercial Act”.

2. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims shall be dismissed as there is no reason. The judgment of the court of first instance is partially unfair in conclusion with different conclusions, but the judgment of the court of first instance cannot be modified disadvantageous to the plaintiff in this case which only the plaintiff appealed. Thus, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.