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, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for adding the judgment as set forth in the following paragraph 3. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The portion of the appeal shall be subject to the witness G testimony in Part IV of the judgment of the court of first instance and the witness G testimony in Part V of the judgment of the court of first instance as “the witness G testimony of the court of first instance.”

Part 5 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be subject to the "date of pronouncement of this judgment" and the "date of pronouncement of the judgment of the court of first instance".

3. Additional matters to be determined are evidence to support the agreement between the defendant and F on credit transfer and takeover (part of the evidence No. 10, hereinafter “instant agreement”) as of September 26, 2009.

In light of the following circumstances, it is difficult to view that the F’s seal out of the contract of this case was genuine, and there is no evidence to prove the authenticity thereof, and thus, the contract of this case cannot be used as evidence to support the defendant’s assertion. Thus, the contract of this case cannot be used as evidence to support the defendant’s assertion.

① The year of preparation of the instant contract is indicated on September 26, 2009 in the contract, but the registration of transfer of the instant right to collateral security, which was based on the transfer of confirmed claim as of September 26, 2009, was completed on May 1, 2015.

The defendant asserts that the right to collateral security transfer is not only the fee, but also the defendant's work life is divided and later completed the above registration of transfer. However, this is not consistent with the defendant's assertion that the defendant has separately used neys for securing the right to family members.

Rather, the defendant around March 6, 2015.