1. The plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim added in the trial are all dismissed.

2. After an appeal is filed.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning the primary claim of this case is as follows, except for the addition of the following judgments as to the matters alleged by the plaintiff in the trial of the court of first instance, and therefore, it is cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

【Judgment as to the Plaintiff’s argument at the trial of the party】 The Plaintiff recognized that the loan amount of KRW 1.5 billion on August 8, 2007, as alleged by the Defendant, was returned immediately and repaid, and the representative director at the time E.C paid KRW 100 million out of the Defendant’s debt on behalf of the Defendant before December 31, 2008, on behalf of the Defendant on behalf of the Defendant. The Plaintiff asserts that even if the loan amount of KRW 100 million on July 27, 2007, which was most unfavorable to the Plaintiff, was appropriated as repaid on December 31, 2008, the total amount of the loan amount of the Defendant’s remaining loan amount of KRW 510,000,000,000,000,000 for the Plaintiff’s execution bond as of the date of the effect of the instant seizure and collection order, the claim was specified as the object or scope of the instant seizure

On November 17, 2013, submitted by the first instance court, the Plaintiff asserted the same as the cause of preliminary or selective claim. After the order of the presiding judge of the first instance court to prepare for the tiny, the Plaintiff withdrawn the same in the preparatory documents dated December 16, 2013, and then re-explosates the assertion that was withdrawn in the first instance court from the preparatory documents dated January 10, 2015, which was the date of the closing of argument in the first instance trial.

The plaintiff's assertion is a claim after the closing of argument, which points out in the order of the presiding judge to prepare for the statement of the first instance. However, even if the problem is not adjusted, the conclusion of the judgment does not affect the conclusion of the judgment.

The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, including the descriptions of No. 6, No. 6, and No. 17-17, shall be the sole basis of the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff. The defendant on July 27, 2007 against AS until December 31, 2008.