The judgment below

The part of the claim for reimbursement is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

(q) the remainder;

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

1. As to the claim for indemnity

A. The lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion that, on the premise that the subject of the instant loan, as indicated in the judgment of the lower court, the Plaintiff subrogated for the Defendant’s obligation for the instant loan to Hyundai Construction (hereinafter “Modern Construction”), the Plaintiff’s primary assertion that ① the subject of the instant loan is a national bank (hereinafter “national bank”) and ② since the right to manage and dispose of the instant deposit claims in the account in the judgment of the lower court belongs to Hyundai Construction rather than the Plaintiff, it is reasonable to deem that the principal of the instant deposit claim and the instant loan claims in the account are not the Plaintiff, but modern Construction, on the ground that it is reasonable to deem that the principal of the instant loan are the Plaintiff, and (2) even if the principal of the instant loan is Hyundai Construction, the Plaintiff and Hyundai Construction, even if the principal of the loan was the national bank and the principal of the instant loan by subrogation, completed settlement of the instant account including the repayment of the instant loan obligations, and thus, the Plaintiff had a claim for reimbursement against the Defendant.

B. Examining the relevant legal principles and the evidence admitted by the court below, the lending entity of the instant loan is a national bank, and the debt of the instant loan through offset disposition.