1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation as to this case is as follows, except for the determination of the Plaintiff’s additional assertion in the trial, and therefore, it is identical to the ground for the judgment in the first instance. Therefore, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 4

2. The plaintiff's additional assertion

A. On May 20, 2013, the Defendant asserted that the letter of consent to reuse of the right to collateral security was drafted by deception and concluded an agreement extending the repayment date of each of the instant loans with D, the representative of the non-party company, by May 20, 2014.

D At the time, when the employee of the defendant presented the necessary part of each of the loan-related contracts of this case, he signed each of the loan-related contracts of this case without any further review.

In the process, the Defendant’s employee, without any explanation to D with a view to including each of the instant loans in the secured debt of the instant mortgage, had D sign a reuse consent agreement (No. 2) between each of the instant loan documents, as if they were to sign each of the instant loan-related contracts, by deceiving D to sign a reuse consent agreement of the instant loan, signed D’s seal impression at the time and affixed a seal on the reuse consent of the said mortgage.

Therefore, the reuse agreement of the right to collateral security is not effective in itself because D was signed by the Defendant’s employee’s deception without knowing the content thereof, and the Defendant’s employee affixed a seal beyond the scope of delegation. Therefore, the loan of KRW 300 million out of each of the loans of this case is not included in the secured debt of the instant right to collateral security (the Plaintiff withdrawn the statement of the first instance court that D was directly affixed to the reuse agreement of the right to collateral security with a preparatory document dated October 5, 2016).

The Defendant’s assertion that the instant special agreement was made by falsity is prepared on December 24, 2012 at the time of entering into the instant collateral agreement.