1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

On January 9, 2013, the Seoul Central District Court against the Plaintiff.

Ⅰ The reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance citing the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance (excluding the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, from 8, 21 to 9, 300; hereinafter the same shall apply) are justifiable;

This is also the same in addition to the evidence submitted by the court of first instance, to examine each of the documentary evidence Nos. 20 through 37 (including serial documentary evidence) submitted by the Plaintiff at the appellate court.

Accordingly, the reason for the judgment of the court of first instance is cited as the reason for this judgment pursuant to the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, and the judgment on the main argument added by the plaintiff is added.

Ⅱ. The plaintiff's additional assertion of appeal and its determination

1. Offset claim based on the claim for return of unjust gains;

A. On June 29, 2011, the summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) the Defendant transferred all rights, such as PF loan claims against the Plaintiff, including the instant loan claims against the Plaintiff to I; and (b) recovered PF loan claims by receiving transfer proceeds; and (c) thus, the instant loan claims were extinguished.

Nevertheless, the Defendant concealed the above transfer of rights in the preceding lawsuit and acquired without any legal cause the interest equivalent to the instant loans, thereby causing damage equivalent to the amount of the loans to the Plaintiff.

Therefore, since the defendant is obligated to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the loan of this case to the plaintiff, the plaintiff shall offset this by the defendant's prior judgment claim of this case as the automatic claim.

Accordingly, all the defendant's claims were extinguished.

B. As duly determined on the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance cited as the grounds of this judgment prior to the judgment of this court, the evidence alone presented in this case is insufficient to recognize the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant transferred the instant loan claims, etc. against the Plaintiff to I and recovered the above loan claims, etc. with the transfer proceeds. Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit without further review.

2. Subrogation, etc.;