The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

A. Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court determined that it was insufficient to recognize that CF notified the Plaintiff of the fact of transferring the secured claim of the instant mortgage or consented by the Plaintiff.

In addition, even if the Plaintiff was notified of, or consented to, the transfer of the secured debt of the instant right to collateral security, the lower court determined that the Plaintiff’s deposit KRW 250,000,000 was extinguished as the Plaintiff’s deposit cause by clarifying that the Plaintiff was the full repayment of the secured debt of the instant right to collateral security.

B. First of all, the Defendant asserted that CF would be aware of the fact that CF would notify the Plaintiff of the assignment of the above assignment. However, the above argument is ultimately a matter of the selection of evidence and fact-finding, which is the exclusive authority of the lower court, and thus, it cannot be viewed as a legitimate ground for appeal.

C. Next, the defendant asserts that he reserved an objection upon receiving the Plaintiff’s above repayment deposit money.

However, such argument is not only related to the lower court’s assumptive judgment, but also difficult to accept for the following reasons.

With respect to any disputed claim, if the obligor made a deposit with the cause of deposit stating that the full amount of the obligation is to be repaid, and the obligee received the deposited amount, the deposit money, in particular when the obligee receives the deposit money, has expressed his/her intention of separate reservation, such as accepting it as part of the claim, barring any circumstance.