1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

3.Paragraph 1 of the text of the judgment of the court of first instance.

1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows: the defendant's new argument at the trial of the court of the first instance added the following judgment as to the new argument at the defendant's trial; the second 17 and 18 of the first instance court's judgment "JP to F Co., Ltd. (former G Co., Ltd. was changed to the name of the company G Co., Ltd.)," and the third 16 of the third 16 "No. 6 and 9" to F Co., Ltd. (the trade name was changed to G Co., Ltd. and H.; hereinafter "non-party Co., Ltd.") are the same as the reasons for the first instance judgment, except for the case where "No. 6 and 9" were changed to "No. 6, 9 and 12," respectively, and they are cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article

2. Additional matters to be determined;

A. The defendant asserts that the plaintiff acquired the status of the entire creditor upon receiving a seizure and collection order against the defendant's claim for the return of investment deposit against the non-party company, and all of the plaintiff's claims against the defendant were extinguished.

According to the statement in Eul evidence No. 13, based on the original copy of the judgment of the court of first instance on June 8, 2016, the fact that the plaintiff received a collection order as to the defendant's claim for the return of investment deposit against the non-party company under Suwon District Court 2015TT104176, is recognized.

However, insofar as there is no evidence to deem that the Plaintiff obtained the satisfaction of the claim based on the above collection order, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have extinguished the Plaintiff’s loan claim against the Defendant solely on the fact that the Plaintiff received the seizure and collection order.

The defendant seems to have misunderstood the validity of a collection order and an assignment order.

The defendant's above assertion is not accepted.

B. In addition, the Defendant also stated in the instant monetary lending agreement (No. 5 No. 1) that “the interest on the instant loan shall be the same as the interest on a corporate bank’s successful loan (the current 4.78% and the monthly floating rate of 3 months),” and according to the statement of the loan interest (the evidence No. 14) written by the non-party company.