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 reasons why this Court has used this part of the facts are the same as the corresponding part of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance (the second to third to 17 pages of the judgment of the court of first instance), and thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, inasmuch as the same part of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance (the second to 9th to 17th page of the judgment of the court of first instance), with the exception of the fact that the third party of the judgment of the court of first instance has concluded “the conclusion” as “the period

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. Legal doctrine regarding the secured obligation of the right to collateral security is established when a contract term for the settlement of accounts is established or when a contract term is set in the basic contract secured by the right to collateral security comes into existence, in principle, at the time when the term of the right to collateral security comes into existence. In this case, even if the claim secured by the right to collateral security terminates in whole and the debtor does not intend to continue transactions by borrowing new money from the creditor, the mortgagee of the right to collateral security may cancel the contract and seek cancellation of the right to collateral security even before the term of the right to collateral security expires. In the meantime, if there is no stipulation on the method of determining the secured obligation of the right to collateral security, and if there is no such agreement, it may be confirmed the secured obligation by the mortgagee of

B. (See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da7176 delivered on May 24, 2002).

Judgment

1. On the other hand, while the Plaintiff asserts that the Seoul Urban Industry Co., Ltd. was fully repaid, the Defendant filed a claim in the name of C for the total amount of KRW 439,216,00 and KRW 200,000 not directly remitted from the deposit account in the name of the Seoul Urban Industry, and KRW 624,020,000 as of August 9, 2012.