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 reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following determination as to a new argument in the defendant's trial, and thus, they are quoted by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Judgment on the defendant's new argument

A. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff’s lawsuit against the Defendant is unlawful on the ground that the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant was issued by Nonparty F a seizure and collection order as to KRW 342,641,293, among the deposit claims against the Defendant, and thus, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit against the Defendant was invalidated within the scope of the amount.

If we gather the purport of the entire argument in the statement in the evidence Nos. 6, 6, and 1, F is the execution bond against the plaintiff, and the claim Nos. 342,641,293 among the deposit claims against the plaintiff's defendant against the plaintiff's defendant as Seoul Central District Court 2015, 14085 on June 12, 2015, it was issued a seizure and collection order, but the above seizure and collection order was revoked on the ground that the document cancellation of the F's execution bond against the plaintiff A was received on February 12, 2016. Thus, the plaintiff's standing to be a party was restored.

The defendant's main defense is without merit.

B. As long as the above case is currently pending in the Supreme Court, the Defendant agreed not to withdraw the Plaintiff’s deposit claim on behalf of the Plaintiff Party A, and the Plaintiff Party B’s father, on behalf of the Plaintiff, until the closure of the case, Suwon District Court (2012Gahap7115), and the Defendant has justifiable grounds to believe that E has the right to represent the Plaintiffs, so long as the above case is pending in the Supreme Court, the Plaintiff Party A cannot claim for the instant deposit claim against the Defendant by each expression agent under Article 126 of the Civil Act and Article 129 of the Civil Act.

According to the statement of evidence No. 2, E is deemed to have prepared a letter of commitment as alleged by the Defendant on June 1, 2012, and it is recognized that E has granted it to E.