All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the court below held that Article 7 (3) of the loan contract of this case is merely a provision that sets forth the order of appropriation of obligation to the lender for the amount jointly received by the lender due to the exercise of the security right jointly held by the lender, such as the amount deposited in the operating account, repayment amount of loans or pledge of deposit deposits, pledge of stock transfer, preferential right to collateral trust, etc. which the borrower deposited in the account designated by the lender only on the date of loan, and further, it is difficult to view that a single lender has a provision that stipulates that the amount repaid separately shall be distributed to the other lender in accordance

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the interpretation of Article 7(3) of the Loan Contract.

The Supreme Court precedents cited in this part of the grounds of appeal are different from those cited in the grounds of appeal, and it is not appropriate to invoke this case.

2. As to the ground of appeal No. 2, the court below rejected the Plaintiff’s claim for damages equivalent to the amount distributed due to Defendant B’s breach of fiduciary duty against the Defendant B, on the grounds as stated in its reasoning, on the ground that there is no evidence to deem that the individual lender could not derive “the obligation to distribute the amount repaid to the other lender” of Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant B”).

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to the fiduciary duty of the company in charge of fund management, contrary to what is alleged in

The Supreme Court precedents cited in this part of the grounds of appeal are different from those cited in the grounds of appeal, and it is not appropriate to invoke this case.

3. As to the third ground for appeal, the lower court.