1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as follows: (a) the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance is used or added as set forth in paragraph (2) below; and (b) the reasoning for the judgment of the first instance is as stated in the part of the reasoning of the judgment, except for an additional determination as to the Plaintiff’s new argument in the trial; and (c) thus, it is acceptable in accordance with

2. Matters to be determined in advance or in addition;

A. Article 480 of the first instance court's decision No. 7 provides that "No. 480" shall be added to "Article 480".

B. Article 11 of the judgment of the first instance court provides that the phrase “A No. 11” shall be written with “A No. 11 and A No. 27-1 through 14,” respectively, in accordance with Article 11 of the judgment of the first instance.

C. The plaintiff's assertion 1) In the process of acquiring the plaintiff's new argument at the trial of the court, J and K, the plaintiff made the full amount of KRW 1,213,42,591 to be treated as the provisional payment to the plaintiff in around 2007, and the plaintiff made the plaintiff liable for the provisional payment to C. Since the defendant made profits from completely removing the claim for the provisional payment to C, the plaintiff has a claim for the return of unjust enrichment against the defendant, and this is irrelevant to the completion of the extinctive prescription period for the right to indemnity against C. Thus, the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff the above 1,213,442,591 won and the legal interest or delay damages therefor to the defendant. Accordingly, the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff the total amount of the loan received by the new bank from the defendant for the financing of the investment, and then appropriated the above amount as the basic payment to C in the account of the plaintiff as the previous payment to C in the account of the defendant, as seen earlier.

However, as above, the fact that C dealt with the amount equivalent to the above subrogated payment to the Plaintiff as the provisional payment account is not sufficient, thereby, the Plaintiff’s compensation liability against C as its own contribution act.