1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to the parts which are used or added as follows, and thus, it shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Supplementary or added parts] Each of the 1st 1st 1st m, 9th 2nd m, 12th m, 15th m, 7th m, 15th m, 4th m, 6th m, 4th m, 6th m, 6th m, 6th m, and 1

24 pages 24 of the judgment of the first instance court, "no." is called "no.".

제1심판결 24면 아래에서 2행의 ‘이율 � 상환방법’을 ‘이율 및 상환방법’으로 고친다.

In the first instance judgment 25th 8th 7th 8th 7th 7th 8th 7th 8th 7th 7th 8th 8th 8th 8th 8th 200, “The fact that the final appeal is pending as of the date of the closing of argument in the instant case may be recognized” to read “A second 2015Da5301, which the Plaintiff appealed against

Once the judgment of the court of first instance is 24, the following shall be added:

The Plaintiff asserts that since the time when the head of Jung-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, Jung-gu, refused to commission the Plaintiff to collect the instant claim after February 26, 2014, the assignment of the claim to the House Savings Bank on July 6, 2010, which was before the Plaintiff holding the settlement money claim, is null and void as the transfer of the non-existent claim, and even if it is deemed that the said assignment of claim is likely to occur in the future, it constitutes an act of disposal by an unentitled person and thus, is null and void.

However, as seen earlier, whether a cooperative is commissioned to collect from the head of the competent Si/Gun is related to the possibility of filing a claim for the settlement money, and it is irrelevant to the occurrence and reversion of the collected settlement money claim, so the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit

D. 3 of the first instance judgment.