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 judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, and the judgment of the defendant on the defendant's assertion is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of Paragraph 2 to the judgment on the defendant's assertion, and thus, it is acceptable as it is

In the second page, the term "523,000,000" in the first loan agreement shall be "80,000,000", and the term "800,000,000" in the second loan agreement shall be "523,00,000".

At the bottom of two pages, 3-6 parallels are as follows.

A person shall be appointed.

B. On May 25, 2012, Korea Development Bank entered into an agreement on asset acquisition including the transfer of all rights under each of the instant loan agreements with a joint asset management company (hereinafter “joint asset management”). On June 26, 2012, the joint asset management transferred the Plaintiff the status of transferee under the said agreement with the Korea Development Bank upon the consent of the Korea Development Bank.

On June 27, 2012, the Korea Development Bank notified B of the assignment of claims by content-certified mail.

The apartment and commercial building at the 3rd bottom of the 3rd side shall be described as “a apartment, commercial building, and completed penting building”.

“The total amount of KRW 77,455,376” from April 22, 2013 to August 10, 2015 at the 2-3 2-3 lower end of the 3-round 2-round 3-round 2013: (a) KRW 71,657,408; (b) KRW 34,424,828 on May 27, 2013; (c) KRW 631,373,140 on the calculation of KRW 77,45,376 on August 10, 2015; (d) KRW 737,45,376 on the calculation of KRW 77,45,376 on the calculation of KRW 631,373,45,376 on the basis of

‘Faly-friendly’.

2. Additional determination

A. On June 2012, the Defendant agreed to adjust all obligations under each of the instant loan agreements by paying KRW 600 million to the end of consultation with C, which is a subsidiary of the management of the combined assets. Since the Plaintiff recovered KRW 77,45,376, the Plaintiff’s claim was groundless since the Plaintiff subsequently returned KRW 777,45,376, supra, at the auction procedure, the amount of KRW 600 million. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the above agreement by the Defendant’s claim, and even according to the Defendant’s assertion, the agreement with the Plaintiff who succeeded to the status of the management of the combined