1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasoning of this court's explanation is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the parts added or revised under paragraph (2) below, and thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. A portion used for adding or cutting;

A. Part 2, Part 7, and Part 8 of the judgment of the first instance court (hereinafter “agricultural Cooperatives Federation”) are as follows: “The National Agricultural Cooperatives Federation (the portion of banking business was divided after the division was established by the Nonghyup Bank; hereinafter “Agricultural Cooperatives Federation”)”; and part 11 of the said part of the said part is as “FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFY 201.”

(b)on Part 3, Part 19 of the judgment of the court of first instance, “as to the cause of the claim 2.” shall be “2. argument and judgment”.

C. On August 28, 2015, the first instance court’s first instance court’s second page “the Plaintiff was paid KRW 12,175 from the Defendant on August 28, 2015” and “the Plaintiff recovered KRW 12,175 out of the above bonds.”

Part IV of the decision of the first instance court shall add to the following:

“The Defendant asserts that since the order of appropriation of dividends in the case of voluntary auction of real estate was wrong, all the Plaintiff’s claims were satisfied. However, there is no evidence to prove that the order of appropriation of dividends as seen earlier was unlawful, the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.”

E. On Chapter 4, Section 7 of the first instance court’s decision, “The date of the first instance court’s sentencing in which the Defendant has a substantial dispute over the existence and scope of the obligation to perform” is deemed “the date of the first instance court’s sentencing in which the Defendant has a substantial dispute over the existence and scope of the obligation,” and Section 8 of the same Article is deemed to read “the rate of delayed damages

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as there is no ground, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just.