1. The judgment of the first instance court, including the Plaintiff’s claim changed at the trial court, shall be modified as follows.

Defendant.

1. Quotation of the first instance judgment

A. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning the instant case is next to the judgment of the first instance.

The same shall apply to the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the plaintiff amends the same as the judgment of the court of first instance and added the following second judgment as to the new argument of the court of first instance.

It shall be quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. 1) A correction of the judgment of the court of first instance added “the judgment of the court” in front of the “attached Form 7” in the 3rd part of the judgment of the court of first instance. 2) Under the 6th part of the judgment of the court of first instance, “B 1 through 4” shall be read as “B 1 through 4.”

3) On the 10th day below the 8th day of the judgment of the first instance, the 15th day "H of the first instance court as a witness H of the first instance court. 4) The 4th day below the 10th day below the 11st day of the judgment of the first instance with the 11 through 13th day evidence of the first instance court.

2. Matters concerning additional claims;

A. As to the assertion of violation of the Civil Execution Act, the plaintiff prepared a written confirmation of collection of this case as if the defendant Credit Guarantee Fund was in collusion with the defendants, and the agreement of this case entered into between the defendants and E is in violation of Article 248(2) and (3) of the Civil Execution Act by allowing the defendant B, a person holding a provisional seizure, to receive the claims for provisional seizure at will without going through deposit procedures despite the concurrent seizure despite the competition between the defendants and E, and thereby, violates Article 248(2) and (3) of the Civil Execution Act. The plaintiff is also against Article 255 of the same Act by depriving the plaintiff of an opportunity to state his opinion or object of distribution upon receiving a notice of the date of distribution as the debtor, and paying KRW 70,307,414 to the defendant B at his own discretion violates Article 160(2) of the same Act which provides that the defendant Credit Guarantee Fund shall deposit the claims of the person holding a provisional seizure right. As such, the part paid by the defendant B was not repaid