1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The ground for appeal by the plaintiff citing the judgment of the court of first instance is not significantly different from the argument in the court of first instance, and the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance are justified even if the evidence submitted to the court of first instance was presented to this court.

Accordingly, the reasoning of the judgment of this court is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the following reasons. Therefore, it is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

In the end of the first instance judgment, "20 million won" in the fourth 5th eth eth 5 of the first instance judgment shall be deemed "30 million won", "20 million won" in the fifth 19th eth eth eth 19 shall be deemed "30 million won", "30 million won" in the second eth eth eth 21 shall be deemed "20 million won", "20 million won" in the sixth eth 6th eth eth eth eth 6 shall be deemed "30 million won", "20 million won" shall be deemed "30 million won", and "20 million won" in the seventh eth eth eth eth eth 19.

The 7th judgment of the first instance court shall be subject to the withholding of the 20th judgment.

The 8th and 9th of the judgment of the first instance shall also be deleted from the 9th to the 9th.

The first instance court determined to the effect that, in addition to the remainder of KRW 250 million, the Plaintiff separately bears the obligation to repay the secured debt of the right to collateral security established on real estate, such as F, etc. of the land at the window of Changwon-si, Changwon-si, the Defendant owned by the Defendant, or the obligation

However, according to the statement in Eul evidence No. 1, it is recognized that the defendant proposed that he pay KRW 400 million to the plaintiff as additional acquisition price in consideration of the above right to collateral security, and there is no evidence that the plaintiff bears the obligation to replace the above right to collateral security in addition to the obligation to pay the remainder of KRW 250 million.

2. Conclusion, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.