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 reasons for this Court’s explanation are as follows: (a) the Plaintiff’s new assertion is amended and added; and (b) the reasoning for this Court’s ruling is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for addition in paragraph (2) below; and (c) the same shall apply to the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance.

【Modification Part】 The 6th 8th 8th 201 of the first instance court ruling is amended to “the December 2, 2013.”

[Supplementary Parts] The 2nd 18th 18th 1st son of the first instance judgment is added to the following:

The registration of the establishment of a mortgage-based foreign exchange bank, E, the debtor, and the maximum debt amount of KRW 280,000,000, was completed by the Suwon District Court No. 4348, Jan. 30, 2008 regarding the above real estate, and on August 28, 2008, the maximum debt amount was increased to KRW 670,00,000.

2. Determination on addition

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant did not have taken over the claim for the purchase price of this case, which is the secured claim of the right to collateral security of this case, from F (hereinafter "transfer of claim of this case").

Although the Defendant asserted that, for the purpose of accepting the instant assignment of claims by E, the Defendant separately issued the Promissory Notes No. 2 (No. 5-1, No. 5-2) with the Defendant as the payee, the said Promissory Notes is a forged Promissory Notes. Even if recognizing the assignment of claims by home, this constitutes a juristic act violating social order or abuse of power of representation, since the Defendant, a shareholder and the representative director, arbitrarily disposed of the major assets of F, a company of which the Defendant is a one-person, and thus

Ultimately, since the secured obligation of the instant right to collateral security does not exist or is null and void, the Defendant cannot receive dividends based on the instant right to collateral security, and therefore, the instant distribution schedule should be revised as stated in the purport of the claim.

B. As to the assertion regarding the absence of the secured claim 1, the Defendant is merely the testimony of the witness C of the first instance trial, the representative director of E.