추심금
1. The plaintiff's conjunctive claim shall be dismissed at the trial;
2. The costs of the lawsuit after the appeal are filed.
1. The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the following facts: Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 3 (the same as Eul evidence 2), Gap evidence 4, Gap evidence 5-1 through 3, Gap evidence 6-1 through 3, Gap evidence 7, Gap evidence 8-1 through 7, Gap evidence 8-1 to 7, Gap evidence 10, Gap evidence 16-18, Eul evidence 3, Eul evidence 5, Eul evidence 8-12, Eul evidence 16-18, Eul evidence 3, Eul evidence 5, Eul evidence 8-2, Eul evidence 16-12, and Eul evidence 16.
C is a person working for the F High School operated by the Defendant, and C's Liar E purchased the land of Jongno-gu Seoul, Jongno-gu, Seoul on September 14, 2007, and acquired the secured debt of 1.4 billion won of the secured debt of the right to collateral security established in the name of the Plaintiff.
B. On September 29, 2008, E received 300 million won from the Plaintiff to secure the successful bid price for the I building located in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government H, and issued and delivered 300 million won of the investment amount to the Plaintiff, ② E’s husband D was written with a promissory note amounting to KRW 500 million, and ③ E’s partner D was set up with a promissory note amounting to KRW 102 of the first floor in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and ③ the obligor, E, collateral security holders, the Plaintiff, and the maximum debt amount of KRW 450 million were set up with respect to the 102th floor in Seocho-gu, Seoul.
C. E was additionally invested in KRW 300 million as the successful bid price for the said I building by the Plaintiff on October 10, 2008.
E When the E is bound by a violation of the Act on the Regulation of Conducting Fund-Raising Business without Permission on October 18, 2008, C, D, L borrowed KRW 300 million from the Plaintiff on November 24, 2008 to use it as criminal agreement money, and under the pretext of security therefor, a notary public borrowed KRW 400 million from the law firm in the law firm in the form of law, ① A, D, or L borrowed KRW 400 million from the Plaintiff (Evidence No. 1207 of 2008, hereinafter “notarial deeds for loan-raising business in this case”), ② C, and D, a notary public of a promissory note stating the acceptance of compulsory execution amounting to KRW 300 million at face value, (1208, 208, hereinafter referred to as “notarial deeds for loan-raising business”).