1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of the judgment by the court is identical to that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for dismissal or addition as follows. Thus, this part of the reasoning of the judgment is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Supplementary or additional parts] Under the second sentence of the judgment of the court of first instance, the "No. 16988" shall be deemed to be "No. 16986."

The third part of the judgment of the first instance is referred to as the "paragraph (d)" as follows.

If the property owned by the obligor of this case is offered as a physical collateral for another obligee’s claims, the portion offered as a physical collateral cannot be deemed as the obligor’s liability property for the general obligee. Therefore, the obligor’s active property should be assessed as the obligor’s active property only after deducting the amount of the secured claim held by other obligees from the value of the property offered as a physical collateral (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da64792, Jan. 12, 2012). The amount calculated by deducting the amount of the secured claim held by the obligor under the name of I Bank from KRW 173,00,000,000, the amount of the secured claim secured by the collateral under the name of I Bank and the amount of KRW 22,50,00,00 (the maximum amount of claims) under the name of JJ.

(Defendant asserts that the actual amount of the claim secured by J is KRW 16,00,000, and even according to this, B is insolvent as of April 28, 2015). There is no dispute over KRW 73,409,554, and Party A 12 E-vehicle 12, there was no dispute over KRW 12,450,00 for vehicles (a franchise, 2001 food, engine displacement 2493ccccc) 12, and Party A 10,16 totaled KRW 85,859,554 B, as of April 28, 2015, there was a negative property as follows.

For the foregoing reasons, the claims against I Bank and J are excluded for the foregoing reasons, and among the small property asserted by the Plaintiff, the obligations of the Plaintiff’s assertion that occurred on April 28, 2015 are excluded.

There is no dispute over Plaintiff 10,415,403, Plaintiff 5, and Defendant 132, and there is no dispute over Defendant 5,00,000, Party A6, Party 133, and Party 22,803,90, respectively, and Party 6, Party 133, and Party 22,803,90.