1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

The court's explanation of this case by the court of the first instance as to this case is not only the second copy of the judgment of the court of the first instance.

1.(b)

The claim is modified as follows and the judgment of the defendant as to the argument in the trial of the court of the first instance is added, and this is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of the first instance. Thus, this is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. After that, the non-102 of the instant commercial building and apartment building No. 102 of the same apartment building and apartment building No. 102 was established on April 24, 2004 at the request of the mortgagee, and rendered a decision of permission for sale. On July 19, 2005, the Daejeon District Court rendered a decision of permission for sale. On July 19, 2005, among the amount of KRW 86,131,344, the amount to be actually distributed on the date of distribution, the pertinent tax payer’s KRW 1,944,540, and the 84,186,804, which was the mortgagee, was distributed to the Seoan Dai Dai Farming Farming Cooperative

The defendant was living together with the plaintiff and E at the time of the above auction procedure and the judgment of this case.

Although the Plaintiff alleged that the Plaintiff was aware of the existence of the instant debt on April 2, 2013 due to the circumstance that the Korea Credit Information Company notified the Plaintiff of the fact of receiving the claim, in light of the witness E’s testimony at the court of first instance, the Plaintiff appears to have been unaware of the existence of the claim based on the instant judgment after the instant auction procedure, and the mere fact that the document informing of the fact of receiving the claim was sent to the Plaintiff’s domicile cannot be readily concluded that the Plaintiff became aware of the existence of the instant debt, and thus, the Defendant’s assertion is rejected.

In conclusion, the decision of the first instance court is justifiable, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.