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 grounds for appeal by the defendant cited in the judgment of the court of first instance are as alleged in the court of first instance, and the evidence submitted to the court of first instance is the evidence of evidence submitted by the defendant to the court of first instance, and even if the defendant's testimony of witness G of the court of first instance bears the whole purport of the pleading, the fact-finding and decision of the court of first instance are justifiable, and there are no errors as alleged in the grounds for appeal by the defendant as the grounds for appeal.

Therefore, the court's explanation on this case is based on the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, as it is, in addition to adding the following judgments as to the contents asserted by the defendant in the trial, since it is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance.

2. The Defendant asserts that the deduction following the receipt of the Plaintiff’s dividends should be asserted to the effect that even if the Plaintiff owned a claim against the Defendant for the agreed amount, the Plaintiff received dividends of KRW 21,924,909 during the procedure for compulsory auction by Busan District Court’s Busan District Court’s J on November 30, 2017 for a motor vehicle owned by the Defendant, so that the said dividends should be deducted from the amount of the claim.

According to the evidence No. 32, the plaintiff applied for a compulsory auction against an automobile owned by the defendant for a provisional execution according to the judgment of the first instance court of this case and received the above money.

However, since the amount received by a provisional execution attached to the judgment of the court of first instance does not definitely take effect, it does not constitute a ground for the appellate court to take this into account (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da22446, Nov. 11, 1994). The defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the first instance judgment is just and the defendant's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.