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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

A. The reasons why the court should explain the cited part of this case are as follows.

Except for the revision of the judgment of the first instance as stated in paragraph (2) and addition of the judgment in the next trial as referred to in paragraph (2), it is identical to that of the plaintiff in the judgment of the first instance. Therefore, the relevant part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the

B. Part 1) Under the 6th of the judgment of the first instance court, the "No. 9" of the second act is dismissed with "No. 9, 17", and each of the "No. 2,199,000 won is added to "No. 2,00,000 won on June 15, 199, and No. 5,00 won on March 7, 2003. 2) The "No. 152,435,483 won on the 143th of the judgment of the first instance court" as "No. 143,35,483 won," and the "No. 2,000,000 won on the date of pleading No. 13,50,000 won as of May 13, 199."

2. As examined in the above cited part of the judgment added, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff’s repayment on December 29, 2006, the entire secured debt of each of the instant mortgages, was extinguished. The entries in Gap’s evidence Nos. 4 through 7, 16, Eul’s evidence No. 5, 7, or evidence No. 17, and 18, which the Plaintiff pointed out or submitted in the trial, are insufficient to reverse the factual recognition or judgment of the relevant cited part. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion on the grounds of appeal on a different premise is rejected.

3. Accordingly, the part against the plaintiff in the judgment of the first instance is legitimate.