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 stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the part which is dismissed or added in paragraph (2) below. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2.The following shall be added to the third or subsequent part at the last two pages:

After that, on May 26, 201, before D entered into the initial credit guarantee agreement with the Plaintiff, the Defendant cancelled the registration of establishment of a new mortgage, and D again takes place on July 1, 201, after the conclusion of the said credit guarantee agreement, the maximum debt amount and the debtor completed the registration of establishment of a new mortgage on the grounds of the mortgage agreement dated June 14, 2011 in the future of the Defendant, as the head of the Postal Service Information Center, “151,002,940 won” under the fourth and fourth, as the “150,002,940 won” under the fourth and fourth, as the “150,02,940 won”.

Part 5 2, "The same evidence and the first instance court" shall be added to "The entry in 1 to 4 of Eul evidence 18, the postal service information center of this court, the results of each order to submit financial transaction information to the N Association, and the first instance court".

Then, “The fact that 76 million won was withdrawn” of the 5th parallel conduct, “The fact that 100 million won including the above 90 million won was withdrawn from the Defendant’s account on September 21, 2011 and was delivered to J, and the fact that J was used as funds to purchase commercial buildings on November 24, 201, as well as the above 76 million won.”

Part 5 11 "A" shall be changed to "A".

The defendant deleted from the 5th page 1 of the third to the 6th page, “The defendant alleged to the effect that he paid KRW 90 million deposited into his own account to D again on September 21, 2011, but only it is possible to verify only the details withdrawn from the defendant’s account, and there is no data to confirm that the documents were returned to D again,” and in the same part, the defendant deleted from the 5th page “the defendant’s assertion to D.”