손해배상
1. The plaintiff's appeal and the plaintiff's additional claims are all dismissed.
2. After an appeal is filed.
Ⅰ. The reasoning of the first instance judgment citing the first instance judgment is reasonable, and thus, it is accepted for this decision in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Ⅱ Plaintiff’s additional appeal claim
1. The plaintiff set up a mortgage on the ground of the claim added at the appellate court's additional claim, the defendant company (P Co., Ltd. prior to the mutual change on February 27, 2002) around October 1, 1994, on the ground of the 16th floor above the 16th floor above the 8th floor above the Y on the land owned by the plaintiff, Suwon-si Qbalon 1,523.8m2, which was owned by the plaintiff around October 1, 1994, and claimed that the plaintiff paid a loan of 50 million won to the defendant company to raise the construction fund for the Ham-gu, Nam-gu, Seoul, 1999, and paid a full payment of KRW 70 million to the defendant company for the construction fund for the Hambal and invested KRW 250 million in the defendant company with the loan of KRW 7,000,000,000 to the third party for the construction fund for the Hamal.
In full view of the statements and the purport of the entire pleadings as stated in the evidence No. 4-3, not the Plaintiff, but the Plaintiff, a separate legal entity that is independent of the Defendant Company, and the trade name was changed to S. on February 5, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as “R”). Around March 12, 1993, a new bank established and loaned a maximum debt amount of KRW 500 million within the scope of the maximum debt amount on the H land, etc. owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “R”) on the land, etc. owned by the Plaintiff. Around September 7, 2000, the evidence submitted in this case only can be recognized that the Plaintiff established and borrowed a mortgage amount of KRW 70 million on September 7, 200.