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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

A. C had its use changed to “a medical facility (a hospital) with five floors in steel reinforced concrete flat slves” around July 31, 2007, around July 31, 2007, a building of reinforced concrete slves (inns) and a building of five floors in the above land, a building of 1,075 square meters in Daegu-dong-gu D, Daegu-gu, E, a building of 1,574 square meters in size, and a building of five floors in the above land.

In order to operate the hospital by remodelling each of the above lands and buildings (hereinafter referred to as "each of the above lands and buildings of this case") and purchasing each of the above real estate around January 6, 2006.

B. C completed the registration of ownership transfer on April 3, 2006 with respect to each of the instant real estates owned by H and G, and thereafter, on April 28, 2006, H transferred 1/10 of H and G’s respective 1/2 shares in the name of H, 4/10, G’s shares were 4/10, G’s shares were 4/10, and I’s shares were 2/10.

C. C borrowed KRW 50 million from the Plaintiff on July 28, 2006, and additionally borrowed KRW 240 million on September 27, 2006, and thereafter, C written a loan of KRW 290 million per month, interest amounting to KRW 90 million per month, and the due date for payment on November 30, 2006 (hereinafter “the instant loan certificate”), and the Defendant jointly and severally guaranteed C’s loan obligations against the Plaintiff.

F, a doctor, decided to take over the shares of the above hospital C on November 30, 2006, transferred on November 30, 2006 the shares of 2/10 in the name of the I on each of the instant real estate, and transferred on February 20, 2007 the shares of 6/10 on February 20, 207.

E. C is not identified after departure from Hong Kong on November 9, 2008.

F. Since then, the 4/10 shares in the G name regarding each of the instant real estate were transferred to L on May 20, 201, and the 6/10 shares in F’s name were sold to M by compulsory auction on September 26, 2011.

[Reasons for Recognition] The defendant recognized that there is no dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, the fact that he has affixed his signature and seal, but the leased amount and the date of the lease are signed and sealed in the state of disturbance.