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 the court should explain in this judgment are as follows: (a) the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be cited as follows; and (b) the defendant's argument shall be added as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the addition of "paragraph (3)" to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (excluding the part concerning "the plaintiff's claim" among the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance) and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. Parts to be dried;

A. The Seoul High Court of the fourth 12th Appellate Court of the first instance determined “The Appellate Court of the first Appellate Court” to mean “the Appellate Court of the first Appellate Court of the first Appellate 2 May 2013.”

B. Article 16-17 of the first instance judgment of the court of first instance provides that “A public official in charge of accounting of the Republic of Korea other than the Incheon District Court (the public official in charge of accounting of the cash other than the revenue and expenditure of the Incheon District Court) has the obligation to notify the fact of transferring each of the above claims to the plaintiff.”

3. Additional determination

A. (1) A summary of the Defendant’s assertion: (a) even if the remainder of the instant housing project cost loan (hereinafter “mortgage claim”) is available as alleged by the Plaintiff, the comprehensive statement on the scope of the secured obligation in the document establishing a mortgage at the time of the establishment of the instant mortgage is merely an example of a general transaction agreement printed in the same text, and thus, its binding force cannot be recognized. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the scope of the instant mortgage claim, which is a comprehensive collateral security, includes the remaining amount of the claim.

(2) Since March 11, 2011, our bank did not urge the EL to pay the key claim, and even though the loan institution, such as our bank, etc., designated as the priority beneficiary in order to secure the key claim, the real estate still remains.