1. All appeals filed by the Defendant and the Intervenor are dismissed.

2. The portion resulting from the participation in the appeal costs.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of some of the following. Thus, this is acceptable in accordance with the main

Then, according to the fact of recognition of the third party decision of the first instance court, "the plaintiff has subrogated to the defendant's obligation of the loan of this case as a surety as a surety."

Part 5 of the fifth decision of the court of first instance is without merit, and the following is added thereto:

“In addition, as the Defendant or the Intervenor alleged in the title trust against the Plaintiff, even if the Defendant had a claim for return of unjust enrichment against the Plaintiff on the premise that the Defendant’s Intervenor held the title trust No. 201 of the instant loan loan against the Plaintiff, this is a claim against the Plaintiff, and thus, it cannot be offset against the Plaintiff’s claim for return of unjust enrichment against the Defendant. The Defendant’s claim for return of unjust enrichment against the Plaintiff under the Daegu District Court Branch Branch of 2018Kadan103530, the Defendant’s claim for return of unjust enrichment against the Plaintiff at present, and it should not be decided by this court as to whether the instant loan No.

2. In conclusion, the judgment of the first instance is justifiable, and all appeals filed by the Defendant and the Intervenor joining the Defendant are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.