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

The reasoning of the judgment of this court is that "The obligation to export DMF export funds to the treatment Export-Import Bank of Korea" in Part 11 of the first instance judgment is "the obligation of KRW 16,293,00,000 out of the obligation to export DMF export funds of KRW 257,82,00,000 as of December 26, 200 to the treatment Export-Import Bank of Korea", and that "the obligation of KRW 16,293,000,000 out of the obligation to export annual payment funds of KRW 257,82,00,00 as of December 26, 200," and that of the first instance judgment is added to the new argument at the trial of the plaintiff's treatment personal travel under Part 21 of the first instance judgment, and therefore, it is cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the

2. Determination as to a new assertion in the trial of the Plaintiff’s Defendant’s medical professionals

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) Claim as to the appendant nature of security interest

As long as Defendant Daewoo International Co., Ltd. succeeded to the Plaintiff’s obligation for the deferred export of DMF to the Export-Import Bank of Korea of Treatment provided as security, it shall be deemed that the rights and obligations concerning the State and public bonds of this case may not be attributed to the treatment of the rights and obligations and that they were transferred to Defendant Daewoo International, based on the nature of the security right, and thus, Defendant Daewoo International is liable to pay to the Plaintiff the principal and interest of the State and public bonds of this case.

(2) Claim for return of unjust enrichment

The Export-Import Bank of Korea shall sell the government bonds of this case and appropriate them for the repayment of the investment loans of the amount equivalent to the 2,776,035,460 won for the Cement Cement's cement production facilities loan claims as well as for the DMF's non-export loan claims. The defendant Daewoo Man-Tech shall return them to the plaintiff, since it shall be deemed that the plaintiff's government bonds of this case were made unjust enrichment to discharge the debts equivalent to the above amount.

B. Determination

(1) Determination as to the assertion of non-existence of security interest

However, according to the nature of the secured claim, the disposal of the secured claim includes the disposal of the secured claim, while the secured claim shall not be transferred to another person or security of another claim, separately from the secured claim. However, in this case, the creditor of the Export-Import Bank, not the transfer of the secured claim, but the transfer of the secured claim due to the transfer of the secured claim to a third party, such as disposal of the secured claim to the third party, and the debtor is merely a change in the debtor, and it is not a case where the subsidiary nature of the secured claim prior to the secured claim is not applicable. However, although the former debtor and the secured person are treated as both the debtor and the secured person are treated as the former debtor and the secured person are separated from the debtor and the secured person as the secured person ( even if the personal debtor succeeded to the rights and obligations as the secured person from the above debt succession to the obligation as the secured person at the time of the above succession, unless there is any evidence as to the fact that the defendant succeeded to the status under the loan agreement between the plaintiff and the plaintiff, the above assertion by the plaintiff cannot be justified in itself.

(2) Determination as to the assertion of restitution of unjust enrichment

According to the above evidence No. 18-3 and No. 19, the Export-Import Bank of Korea sold its government bonds as security on Feb. 9, 2001, it is difficult to recognize that the Export-Import Bank of Korea sold its government bonds to appropriate its funds for the repayment of its principal and interest on cement production facilities loan claims of the amount of KRW 14,36,432,938 out of its subscription funds for DMF export, and the amount of its subscription funds of KRW 16,847,67,272 from its subscription funds. The fact that it operated the cement production facilities loan claims of KRW 16,86,272 from its subscription funds of KRW 30,00,000. Furthermore, it is difficult to recognize that the Export-Import Bank of Korea appropriated its funds for the repayment of its principal and interest on the above 30,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is justified, and all appeals by the plaintiff against the defendants are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kang Young-ho (Presiding Judge)