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 of first instance’s acceptance of the judgment is the same as the statement of the reasoning of the judgment of first instance, except for the following modifications. Thus, this is accepted by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The following shall be amended from 4 pages 12 to 5 pages 4 of the first instance judgment:

D. B’s property status 1) At the time of the change in the lessee’s name of the instant lease agreement, the sum of active property value B was KRW 1,628,708,708 as indicated in the following table:

As of October 2017, the Defendant alleged that B had a claim equivalent to KRW 455,490,000 against C with respect to KRW 455,490,00. However, in light of the description of evidence No. 13, it is difficult to reverse the above fact-finding solely on the basis of each description of evidence No. 11-1, No. 11-4.

According to the evidence evidence evidence evidence evidence No. 13 (Financial Statements for Confirmation, etc.), as of March 31, 2013, C bears KRW 292,376,671 as its main obligation for long-term loans. Even if the entire debt of B refers to the claim for provisional deposit against B arising from the Defendant’s assertion, even after March 31, 2017, B paid KRW 10 million on May 11, 2017, and KRW 10 million on May 14, 2017, and KRW 25 million on August 12, 2017, and thus, B’s claim for provisional deposit against B was paid KRW 267,376,671 as at the time of the assignment of the claim of this case, and is considered as above even if it exceeds its obligation.

As of October 11, 2017, the Defendant alleged that B had a claim for loans of KRW 20 million to U, KRW 40 million against R, KRW 170 million against R, and KRW 160 million against V. However, it is difficult to readily believe that each of the items stated in the evidence Nos. 14, 15, and 16 are consistent therewith.

The Plaintiff asserts that the value of the said real estate is KRW 725,00,000,000, the lease deposit return claim under the instant lease agreement 440,000,000 under the instant lease agreement. However, the Plaintiff asserted that the value of said real estate is KRW 725,00,000,000, the National Bank of Korea No. 10.