1. The plaintiff's primary claim and the first and second preliminary claim added at the trial are all the plaintiff's appeal.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation in this part is the same as “1. Basic Facts” of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for dismissal or addition as follows. Thus, this part is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The court of first instance (Seoul High Court Decision 2009Na52917) of first instance on July 22, 2010 (Seoul High Court Decision 2009Na52917) of first instance on July 1, 2009 and second instance on April 6, 2009, "The remaining part of the claim against the defendant was dismissed as part of the collection order of this case, and the other was rejected by the association of the non-party)" was added to the end of fourth instance on April 3, 2009, and the part of the claim against the witness of the first instance on July 6, 2013 (the remaining part on the claim against the witness of the first instance on July 6, 200).

2. Judgment on the main claim

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff and the Defendant are treated as having actually collected the collection amount externally between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, but it is reasonable to deem that there was an agreement between both parties to postpone the actual collection period without the agreement on the due date for payment. Since the above debt reaches the due date as the delivery of the instant complaint, the Defendant is liable to pay the amount to be collected to the Plaintiff.

B. The evidence presented by the Plaintiff is insufficient to recognize that there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant that the actual collection was postponed for a considerable period of time without the agreement, and that is otherwise recognized.