1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

Judgment of the first instance.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to the submission or addition of the following, and therefore, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Each part of the judgment of the court of first instance, which is used or added, "the apartment of this case" in the 3th, 4th, 16, and 21 of the grounds of the judgment, shall be further incorporated into "the real estate of this case".

The reason for the judgment of the court of first instance is that the "security deposit" and the "security deposit for lease on a deposit for lease on a deposit basis" in the 4th sentence and the 20th sentence shall be applied to each lease deposit.

The following shall be added to the 5th day following the ruling of the first instance.

“The Plaintiff is merely KRW 250,000,000 based on the provisional registration of this case, but the Defendant received payment in lieu of the market value of KRW 11770,000,000 in total, and G land. The Defendant asserted to the effect that the Defendant applied for voluntary auction of the instant real estate on the ground that the instant provisional registration had been received in lieu of the land in excess of his/her claim amount constitutes abuse of rights. Thus, according to the evidence No. 8, the Defendant’s application for voluntary auction of the instant real estate on the ground that the instant provisional registration had been filed in lieu of payment in lieu of the land in lieu of his/her claim amount constitutes abuse of rights. Thus, according to the evidence No. 8 of this case, even though the Defendant applied for voluntary auction of the instant real estate to the Incheon District Court, but there is no possibility of remaining, the decision on commencement of auction was revoked. However, the testimony of the witness of the first instance trial alone is insufficient to recognize that the market value of each of the instant real estate is the total amount of KRW 1177

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion.