1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasons for the court’s explanation concerning this case are as follows: (a) the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance is written, added, or deleted as stated in paragraph (2) below; and (b) the Plaintiff’s new assertion in the trial is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the Plaintiff’s new assertion in the trial as stated in paragraph (3) below; and (c) thereby,

2. The second page 10 of the judgment of the court of first instance to “, December 10, 2010,” written, added, or deleted, shall read “, December 10, 2010.”

A. According to the third decision of the first instance court, the 4th "Plaintiff" shall be deemed to read "the instant church".

A. To delete all the “Defendants” of the first instance trial Nos. 7, 2, and 3, 3, 2, and 8. In addition, the “Defendants” of the first instance trial No. 8, 2, 3, and 8, 3, 3, 4, 5, 5, 8, and 8, 8, and 15, 8, and 15, shall be

A. “At the time of the instant claim, the instant church’s claim was dismissed on August 21, 2015 in the case of the objection claim No. 2015da10342, but the appellate court (Seoul Eastern District Court 2015Na2536) cancelled the judgment of the first instance and accepted the instant church’s claim on the ground that the promissory notes in the instant case No. 2012Gada19018, April 8, 2016, are deemed to secure the claims under the instant payment order, and the appellate court (Supreme Court Decision 2016Da219280) accepted the instant church’s claim. The promissory notes in the instant case No. 2012Ga19018, Sept. 28, 2016, revoked the judgment of the appellate court and remanded to the appellate court on the ground that there are other separate claims from the claims under the instant payment order, and the present appellate court (Seoul Eastern District Court 2016Na2363663636).

(C) The Plaintiff’s claim was dismissed on July 5, 2016 on the grounds that there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff paid KRW 55 million to the Defendant with the loan in the instant loan No. 2014Gadan48300, and the Seoul Eastern District Court currently appealed against the Plaintiff.