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 court of the first instance’s explanation concerning this case is as follows. The part of the judgment of the first instance is used as follows, and except where the defendant added the judgment as to the newly asserted part in the court of first instance as set forth in paragraph (2), the reasoning of the judgment is as stated in the first instance’s reasoning. Thus, this is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

On June 29, 2012, the first instance court held that “the secured obligation of the right to collateral security established by the plaintiff on June 29, 2012,” as “the secured obligation of the right to collateral security established by the plaintiff on land E,” set forth in the second instance judgment.

The fifth written judgment of the court of first instance, "4,880 won" in the fifth written judgment of the court of first instance, shall be changed to "4,88 million won".

In the first instance judgment, the part of the evidence Nos. 7 and 3 of the first instance judgment is just (the defendant is not sufficient to reverse the above judgment only with some description of the evidence No. 7).

On the 12th page of the first instance judgment, the defendant's "the defendant" in the 20th page shall be added to "L".

2. The defendant asserts to the effect that the amount of money equivalent to the collection amount should be deducted from the plaintiff's claim amount, as the plaintiff collected the remaining amount to be paid to the defendant out of the dividends of the auction procedure on land C.

On the other hand, the plaintiff collected KRW 71,864,830 on the remaining amount deposited by the court of first instance, among the dividends of the procedure for compulsory auction with respect to land C, by accepting a seizure and collection order, with the title of execution, by accepting the judgment of the court of first instance with respect to the provisional execution of this case. However, the effect of repayment due to provisional execution does not become conclusive, but it is nothing more than that arising under the condition of rescission with respect to the declaration of provisional execution or the cancellation of the judgment on the merits at the appellate court, and therefore, the amount of the provisional execution was paid

Even if the appellate court does not consider it, it is necessary to judge the legitimacy of the claim.