1. Defendant B’s appeal is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's claim extended from the trial to the incidental appeal shall include the plaintiff's claim.

1. Whether the appeal for subsequent completion is lawful, the Plaintiff alleged to the effect that the Defendants intentionally failed to receive the service, and in particular, Defendant C was aware that the lawsuit was pending in the merits through the Plaintiff’s provisional disposition prohibiting the payment of dividends. Thus, the fact that the instant case was pending by public notice from the time of delivery of the complaint to the time of service by public notice is obvious in the record, and there is no other evidence to deem that the Defendants could not be able to observe the appeal period due to any reason attributable to the Defendants. Thus, the appeal

2. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as to the statement No. 3-1 through No. 6 of the claim No. 3-6 against Defendant B, the Plaintiff may recognize the fact that the Plaintiff remitted to Defendant B the total sum of KRW 5,000,000 on November 3, 2012, and KRW 50,000,000 on November 16, 2012, and there is no counter-proof.

Therefore, as the Plaintiff seeks, Defendant B is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 50,000,000 won and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum prescribed by the Civil Act from December 18, 2013 to October 16, 2014, which is obviously a date following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% per annum prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment.

3. Claim against Defendant C

A. (1) On July 8, 201, the Plaintiff and the joint and several surety of Defendant B and D agreed to lend KRW 300 million to Defendant B on July 8, 201 with interest rate of KRW 24% per annum, and to pay the principal or interest at a rate of 30% per annum if delay in payment of the principal or interest is delayed. Defendant B’s buyer and the joint and several surety of the said loan debt were jointly and severally guaranteed by Defendant B.

The fact that Defendant B paid the principal amount of KRW 100 million and interest from the above loan to October 2012 to the Plaintiff is the Plaintiff.

(2) D’s act of disposing of the property of D is on January 4, 2013, the real estate listed in the separate sheet 1 through 5 (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”) between Defendant C and Defendant C.