1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the Defendant (Counterclaim Defendant) in the judgment of the first instance amounting to KRW 20,388,250 and KRW 11,132,787 among them.

1. The reasoning for this part of the reasoning is as follows, and this part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

From the second sentence of the judgment of the court of first instance, the "mortgage security" in the second sentence is deemed to be "mortgage security" (hereinafter referred to as "mortgage security").

The third part of the judgment of the court of first instance (hereinafter referred to as the "second part mortgage") shall be deemed as the "second part mortgage".

If the third part of the judgment of the first instance, “the payment was received” in the 15th part of the judgment, “(C or the non-party special purpose company is deemed to have been paid (the sum of principal and interest of loans No. 1 and 2 when reporting the claim regarding the first priority mortgage to the auction court of this case). However, as the sum of principal and interest of the first loan exceeds 260,000,000 won, the auction court appears to have distributed the first loan claims as to the first loan claims.”

2. Determination on the main claim

A. (1) The Defendant’s assertion that the non-party special purpose company transferred the instant loan to the Plaintiff is null and void. As such, the instant lawsuit is unlawful as it was filed by a non-party standing to sue.

(2) In the action for performance as in the instant case, the standing to sue of a person who asserts himself/herself as a person holding the standing to sue and is asserted as a person holding the standing to sue by him/her as a person holding the standing to sue, and the existence of standing to sue in accordance with the Plaintiff’s assertion itself is inappropriate, and the Plaintiff or the Defendant does not need to be a person holding the right to demand performance or a person holding the duty to perform performance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da1479

B. (1) The judgment as to the cause of claim (1) The Defendant asserted by the Plaintiff on the date of distribution of the remainder of the loan that remains after having appropriated the instant loan with the instant dividend to the Plaintiff.