The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of any statement in the supplemental appellate brief not timely filed).

1. As to the allegation of set-off based on the right to demand reimbursement based on the assumption of obligation with immunity

(a) Where a person who has pledged his/her property mortgaged on another person's property to secure his/her obligation, loses the ownership of the property mortgaged by the execution of the mortgage, he/she shall obtain a right to indemnity against the debtor;

(1) Article 370 and Article 341 of the Civil Act provides that “performance of an obligation,” which is the requirement for acquiring the right of indemnity, means the realization of payment, which is the content of an obligation, and thereby, the obligation is extinguished by accomplishing its purpose. Therefore, even if an existing obligation is transferred from the existing obligor at the time of acquisition while maintaining its identity, and it is not effective to extinguish the existing obligation, the obligation cannot be deemed as a case where the existing obligor is discharged from the obligation, even if it is so, even if the existing obligor is discharged

Therefore, unless there are circumstances such as that the existing debtor, in return for the assumption of the obligation, has agreed on the performance of the obligation to the person who has pledged to the person who has pledged to secure the obligation, the person who has pledged to secure the obligation shall not be deemed to have the right to indemnity against the existing debtor.

B. In the same purport, the judgment of the court below that the Defendant, who has pledged his property to secure another’s obligation, was unable to exercise the right to indemnity against the C Union only by taking over the obligation of the C Union (hereinafter “C Union”), with the discharge of the obligation, is just, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there is no error by misapprehending the legal principles

2. As to the allegation of set-off against loans claims with automatic claims

A. The lower court: (a) on March 28, 2012, the Defendant KRW 50 million to theO on March 28, 2012.