1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

With respect to this case, this court's use is identical to the entry of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for any dismissal or addition as follows. Thus, this court's use is citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

From 5th to 11th of the judgment of the first instance court, the 6th to 5th of the judgment is as follows.

“Preliminary Claim”: (a) Even if the Defendant bank knew of the application for commencement of rehabilitation procedures around 10:28 on June 7, 2013 when the commencement of rehabilitation procedures of the Defendant bank was disclosed, the Defendant bank was immediately liable to pay the remittance amount stated in the payment order to the Defendant bank upon receipt of the payment order. As to the remittance amount for which the payment order was received before June 7, 2013, the Defendant bank assumed the obligation before becoming aware of the application for the commencement of rehabilitation procedures; (b) does not go against Article 145 subparag. 2 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act. Furthermore, even if the Defendant bank’s deposit obligation to the debtor company was entered in the deposit ledger rather than the time of receipt of the payment order, the receipt of the payment order constitutes a direct cause for the occurrence of deposit obligation. Therefore, the Defendant bank’s deposit obligation for the remittance amount received prior to the commencement of rehabilitation procedures constitutes a set-off claim under Article 145 subparag. 22(b) of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act. Therefore, the Defendant’s allegation that the payment order was already received prior to the Defendant bank’s claim.