1. The plaintiff's appeal and the defendant's incidental appeal are all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except where the judgment of the first instance is accepted or a part thereof is added, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

In the judgment of the court of first instance, the Defendant claimed that “13,621,369 won” was 139,752 square meters per 139,752 square meters per annum, and that “13,67,049 won per 133,67,00 won per annum = 56,67,000 won per annum [=77,000 x 0.2 x less than KRW 3249/366) x 13,621,369 won per annum 260,000 per annum 260,000 won per annum 265,00 won per annum from September 20, 2008 to 365,000 won per annum 265,000 won per annum 56,000 won per annum, and thus, the Defendant’s allegation that the damages for delay should be paid per 260,567,296,000 won per annum.

) As seen earlier, in light of relevant evidence, such as the distribution schedule (Evidence A2-4), etc., the Defendant, at the instant auction procedure, demanded only KRW 77 million of the judgment among the claims in this case, and received dividends, and appropriated the distribution to designate the principal as repayment of principal. As such, the Defendant’s above assertion on a different premise is without merit, and is without merit.) No. 5 of the judgment of the first instance. 10 of the judgment of the court of first instance.