1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. This Court rendered July 7, 2017 with respect to cases of suspending compulsory execution.

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 for the addition of the following items from the bottom of the fifth to the third part of the judgment of the first instance, and therefore, it is citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[B] Inasmuch as the Plaintiff’s obligation pursuant to the above conciliation protocol against the Defendant and the Plaintiff’s obligation pursuant to the instant judgment against the Defendant are jointly and severally liable with the same economic purpose, D’s respective repayment of obligation pursuant to the Plaintiff’s instant judgment is effective as repayment of obligation pursuant to the Plaintiff’s instant conciliation protocol. However, as seen earlier, there is no agreement between the Defendant and D as of October 5, 2012 and agreement as of October 31, 2012, and D’s 30,000,000 and 15,000,000 won as of October 31, 2012, 200 and 15,000 won as of October 31, 2012 (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 200,500,000 won as to the Plaintiff’s obligation pursuant to the above conciliation protocol, each of the above money ought to be deemed to have been appropriated as repayment of obligation pursuant to the Plaintiff’s instant judgment.