1. The plaintiff's appeal and the claim extended in the trial are all dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit after filing the appeal.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the underlying facts is as stated in Paragraph 1 of the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except for the second instance judgment “Before July 29, 201,” which read “Before November 29, 2007,” and thus, citing this part in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) and the Defendant sold the new building of this case, and the buyer jointly and severally guaranteed the part payment obligation borrowed from financial institutions (the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation, the Housing Finance Corporation, the New Cooperatives, etc.).

Among the buyers, 203 households were refused to move into the 60 days after the date of designation of occupancy, did not pay any balance, and the part payments borrowed from agricultural cooperatives, etc. were not repaid.

The sum of the intermediate payment obligations jointly and severally guaranteed by the Plaintiff and the Defendant reached KRW 47 billion at the time of the third settlement agreement, and the Nonghyup et al. notified that the repayment period of the intermediate payment that has already been postponed over three times after September 2012 would no longer be extended.

(2) At the time of rehabilitation procedures, the Plaintiff’s joint and several surety claims against the Plaintiff were in progress, and thus, they were able to repay only according to the amount modified according to the rehabilitation plan and the schedule prescribed in the rehabilitation plan.

Therefore, it is apparent that agricultural cooperatives, etc., are claiming the payment of intermediate payment to the defendant who is not the plaintiff.

(3) At the time of the third settlement agreement, the Plaintiff exercised a lien against 203 households with the remainder of the construction cost as the secured claim in the amount of KRW 24,449,461,551.

The defendant had concerns that agricultural cooperatives will claim the performance of the guaranteed obligation, and the plaintiff had cancelled the sales contract to 203 households exercising the right of retention and provided it as security to financial institutions, and borrowed 45 billion won from financial institutions to use it as subrogation for the part payment obligation.

To this end, the Plaintiff.