1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the part of the grounds of appeal in the first instance judgment, except for the addition of “judgment on the grounds of appeal 4.5” following the last 4th place of the first instance judgment, and thus, the same is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

【Supplementary Part】 4. Judgment on the Grounds for Appeal

A. Before each of the instant claims is established, the Plaintiff settled a set-off of the sales price payable with B as the claim for provisional payment with respect to B and paid the sales price in full.

Therefore, the claim for the sale price against the plaintiff cannot be the secured claim of each of the above secured claims.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the respective descriptions in subparagraphs 5 and 6 of Article 5 and the purport of the entire pleadings, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff’s obligation to sell the purchase price against B was fully paid by offsetting the Plaintiff’s claim against the provisional payment claim, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

The plaintiff's above assertion cannot be accepted.

1) The Plaintiff asserts that, under the balance sheet B (Evidence A 4), the term “foreign sales amount” falls under the category B’s attempted sales amount, and that the credit account sales amount of KRW 2,402,543,790 in the year 2007 decreased to KRW 0 in the year 2008 was due to the Plaintiff’s full payment of the unpaid sales amount of KRW 1,046,90 among them. However, the Plaintiff stated that the audit report (Evidence B(Evidence 5 and 6) prepared by the accounting firm with respect to the financial statements of KRW 5,046,90 in the year 208 is limited to the scope of audit and inspection, and that the above company’s financial records cannot express its opinion on the financial statements of the year 206 and 207 due to insufficient accounting records

In light of the above circumstances, it is difficult to believe that B’s financial statements are recorded in the year 2008.

Therefore, the plaintiff's purchase price is all stated just because the credit sales amount was decreased.