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 the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for the addition of the judgment on the defendant's argument in the trial of the court of the first instance, and therefore, it is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of the first instance.

2. Determination on the defendant's assertion in the trial room

A. 1) The Defendant’s defense against the defense prior to the merits was the Defendant’s defense, and there was no claim or debt relationship between the Defendant and the Intervenor to the Plaintiff, and there was an agreement to not proceed with any civil or criminal procedure related to the Plaintiff’s Intervenor in the future. As such, the agreement to the lawsuit prior to the lawsuit was also effective between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful as it goes against the agreement to the lawsuit to cancel the right to collateral security (hereinafter “related lawsuit”) filed by the Defendant against the Plaintiff Intervenor in light of the overall purport of the pleadings as stated in the evidence Nos. 25 and 26, and for the following reasons, the judgment to invalidate the lawsuit was rendered in the first instance court (Seoul High Court 2014Na28734) and the appellate court (Seoul High Court 2014Na28734). It can be acknowledged that the said judgment became final and conclusive.

In other words, on April 4, 2012, the representative director C of the defendant (which is the plaintiff in a related lawsuit; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the plaintiff's supplementary intervenor (the defendant in a related lawsuit; hereinafter the same shall apply) withdraw all the lawsuits between the defendant and the plaintiff's supplementary intervenor, and C. In order to secure the payment of delinquent tax by the plaintiff's supplementary intervenor, the defendant set up a collateral security amount of KRW 850 million with the plaintiff's supplementary intervenor as to real estate owned by the defendant, and the defendant did not have any claim and debt relationship between the defendant and the above C, and no civil and criminal procedure relating to the plaintiff's supplementary intervenor is being initiated.