All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against Defendant Industrial Bank of Korea, including those resulting from participation.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court acknowledged the facts as indicated in its reasoning after comprehensively taking account of the adopted evidence, and determined that an occupancy agreement entered into between the Plaintiff and Defendant Invested Media Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) on December 13, 2007 can only be deemed as a pre-sale or conditional sales agreement to prepare future transactions without fixing the contract object, and it cannot be deemed as a sales agreement which constitutes the cause of the registration of transfer of ownership. On other premise, the lower court rejected the Defendant Industrial Bank of Korea (hereinafter “Defendant Bank”)’s assertion that the repurchase period will run from December 13, 2007, which is the date of entering into a sales agreement with repurchase agreement, on which the date of entering into the occupancy agreement (hereinafter “the date of entering into the occupancy agreement”).

In light of the records, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles on the validity of a contract and the redemption period, or failing to exhaust all necessary

2. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 5, the court below rejected the defendant bank's assertion that, on the grounds as stated in its reasoning, the plaintiff omitted the pledge rights of the defendant bank in the facts of the cause of deposit or the evidence protocol while depositing the redemption price against the defendant company. However, the validity of the redemption price deposit depends only on whether the requirements of the deposit for repayment under the Civil Act are met, and thus, whether it can be viewed as the repayment to the transferor is irrelevant to the validity of the deposit for repayment, and there is no ground to deem otherwise that the legal relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant bank affects the legal relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant company. Thus, the court below rejected the defendant bank's assertion that the repayment deposit cannot be effective because it omitted the statement of

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is just and it is so decided.