1. The plaintiff's appeal and the second preliminary claim added by this court are all dismissed.

2...

1. The grounds for appeal by the plaintiff citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and the facts established and the judgment of the court of first instance are justified according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court of first

Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of this court is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for amendments as follows. Thus, it is accepted by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

However, with respect to the preliminary claims added by the Plaintiff to Defendant B, C, and D, the following “2. The second preliminary claims are added.”

The fourth two parallels of the first instance judgment " June 27, 2001" shall be deemed " June 27, 2002".

After the fourth 13th 13th 13th 1001 of the judgment of the first instance, “the second 2th 13th 2th 2001” is added.

The 5 line "interest KRW 4,000.092" at the sixth bottom of the judgment of the first instance is "interest KRW 4,000,092".

"50,000,000 won" in the 9th instance judgment of the first instance shall be deemed to be "455,00,000 won".

The 9th 5th 1st 5th eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eths in our bank.

Each “E” of the 12th 12th 21th 21th, 13th 3, 13th 6, 14th 18th 18th 14th , shall be considered as “Korea Bank”.

The 13th to 5th of the 13th judgment of the first instance court refers to the “E” as “Korea Bank.”

The 13th 8th 13th am "E" in the judgment of the first instance shall be considered as "Korea Bank".

The 13th judgment of the first instance court "(referring to "Reference....................." are "Reference.".

The term "right to indemnity" in the 14th to 20th of the judgment of the first instance is regarded as "right to indemnity".

2. Judgment on the second preliminary claim

A. The gist of the plaintiff's assertion was that the plaintiff subrogated to the bank on September 14, 2007, and thus the defendant B, C, and D, a joint tortfeasor, exempted the defendant B from the liability for damages arising from the tort against the bank. Thus, the plaintiff can exercise the direct right of indemnity against the above defendants.

Therefore, the above Defendants exempted the Plaintiff from payment by subrogation.