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 follows, except for the addition of the judgment of the defendant to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as stated in paragraph (2) below, and therefore, it is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance.

2. The Defendant additionally deposited only the amount calculated on June 10, 2015 on the premise that the Plaintiff-ho concrete corporation paid income tax on June 10, 2015 with the false statement of the reasons for deposit and the income tax was paid. Even if the Defendant did not withhold an objection, this is merely the result of the Defendant’s deception in the Plaintiffs’ false reasons for deposit, and the deposit of this case is invalid as an unlawful deposit which intentionally states the reasons for deposit differently from the fact.

Plaintiff

Although Ho concrete corporation did not pay income tax on June 10, 2015, it paid income tax on the cause of the instant deposit on June 10, 2015, and as a result, the fact that the remaining amount of debt under the instant judgment against the Defendant was stated as KRW 58,722,295, as seen earlier, the deposit cannot be deemed null and void solely on the ground that the false statement was made in the cause of the deposit.

However, although the income tax portion on KRW 81,150,00 paid by the defendant on behalf of the plaintiff Ho concrete corporation is not deducted from the amount of debt that the plaintiffs should pay to the defendant, the plaintiffs' deposit after deducting it is made, and the amount of debt to the defendant at the time of the deposit of this case is not deposited by the plaintiffs, and the plaintiffs' deposit of this case is not accepted by the defendant as the creditor.