1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows: the plaintiff and the defendant's "won and between the defendant" in Part 15 of the second judgment of the court of first instance; the plaintiff's "Plaintiff" in Part 20 of the second judgment are changed to "foreign company"; and the defendant's argument between the third and the third half are as stated in the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the following determination as to the defendant's argument between the third and the third half, and therefore, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The defendant asserted that the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case belongs to the jurisdiction of the Seoul Central District Court, which is the domicile of the non-party company, in accordance with the agreement of this case (No. 1), and that it is unlawful to file a lawsuit with the Seoul Eastern District Court in violation of his jurisdiction. Thus, according to the evidence No. 1, it can be recognized that Article 4 (2) of the monetary loan loan agreement on the above loan provides that "if legal dispute arises with respect to this agreement, the court having jurisdiction over the non-party company's domicile shall have jurisdiction over the non-party company's domicile." However, the court having jurisdiction over the domicile of the non-party company or the plaintiff's domicile is not the Seoul Central District Court but the Seoul East District Court is clearly recorded, and

In addition, the defendant is the time when the defendant actually moved into the apartment of this case. The defendant did not move into the apartment of this case due to the reasons attributable to the non-party company, such as the non-party company's default, creditors' exercise of lien, non-establishment of infrastructure, and non-performance of sales contract. Therefore, the repayment period of the loan has not yet arrived. However, even if the defendant's assertion arrives, if the defendant refuses to move into the apartment of this case, the repayment period of the loan can not arrive. This is the same between the non-party