1. The plaintiff shall dismiss the incidental appeal.

2.The following amounts, among the judgments of the court of first instance, exceed the amount ordering payment:

1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for partial revision or addition of a decision on incidental appeal and new argument in the trial as follows. Thus, this part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The amendment shall be made to “Korea Development Bank” in Section 4 of the judgment of the first instance court, which shall be amended to “Korea Commercial Bank”.

Part 2, part 11 of the judgment of the first instance court is amended to "the instant land".

3. Matters to be judged additionally;

A. We examine the Plaintiff’s incidental appeal ex officio on December 31, 2015, and even though this court ordered the Plaintiff to correct the stamps within seven days with respect to the Plaintiff’s incidental appeal and served the said order of correction on December 31, 2015, the fact that the Plaintiff did not correct the stamps within the period specified in the above order of correction is apparent in the record. Thus, the Plaintiff’s incidental appeal is unlawful.

B. Under paragraph 6 of the judgment of the court of first instance, the following judgments shall be added to the plaintiff's new arguments in the trial of the court of first instance.

The defendant purchased the real estate of this case from F around 1988 and held title trust to G, H, C, and I, and completed the registration of transfer of ownership of this case. However, since the plaintiff acquired the real estate shares of this case owned by C due to the failure of business operation of C, it is argued that the registration of transfer of ownership of this case under the name of the plaintiff is null and void. However, since there is no evidence to acknowledge it, the above assertion by the defendant is without merit.

The defendant asserts that the plaintiff's acquisition of the share in the real estate of this case owned by C through a public sale on March 19, 2004, and thereafter the defendant did not exercise any right, such as a claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to rent, etc., against the defendant, the filing of the lawsuit of this case goes against the principle of invalidation, and therefore, it is written in Dok, Gap, 8, and 9.