The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal that misunderstanding the legal principles on the interpretation of the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions, the lower court determined that the part of the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the instant deposit claim in accordance with each of the instant transfer notes and the first and second promise notes was in violation of the good faith principle as stipulated in the Regulation of Terms and Conditions Act or did not constitute unfair transaction, etc

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, such determination by the court below is just and acceptable, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles on the interpretation of the Regulation of Standardized Contracts

2. As to the grounds of appeal by misunderstanding the legal principles on the refund of value-added tax, the lower court determined that it is reasonable to view that the instant deposit claim is included in the rights stipulated in Article 4(1)4 and 5 of the Assignment Protocol, on the grounds as stated in its reasoning.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the refund of value-added tax, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.