beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
purport.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: (1) the debtor roll of No. 5 of the judgment of the court of first instance is dismissed as "debtor 17"; (2) the second and the third parallel of the judgment "No. 2-1 through No. 5" is added to "No. 4 and No. 5-1 through No. 5; and (3) the 7th and 2-1 of the judgment of the court of first instance are the same as the part of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the newly used part of the judgment as set forth in paragraph (2). Thus, this is cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. According to the reasoning of the judgment on the assertion of debt acquisition, 1.3 No. 3-1 and No. 3-1, and the fact-finding with respect to the non-AFFC, as listed below, the Defendant acquired 1.0 billion won out of 1.3 billion won out of 1.3 billion won out of 1.3 billion won of 1.4 billion won of 1.4 billion won of 14 billion won of 300 million won of 1. The Defendant acquired 14 billion won of 14 billion won of 14-1 of 14.3 billion won of 14.3 billion won of 14-1 of 14. The Defendant acquired 3 billion won of 13 billion won of non-AFFC with respect to 300 million won of 14-1 of 300 million won of 14. (However, since the Defendant acquired 13 billion won of 13th of 13th of 19.
(2) The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the establishment of a collective security right as to the establishment of a collective security right as to the establishment of a collective security right as to the land in this case owned by B (the priority order number of the establishment of a collective security right as to D, No. 9876 of March 23, 2006, No. 19876 of March 23, 2006, No. 15131 of July 2006, No. 15131 of the Act No. 15131 of July 19, 2006, No. 1. 1690 million won, and No. 10-210, May 17, 2007, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the establishment of a collective security right as to the joint security right as to the land in this case owned by B.