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

A. Plaintiff’s claim against Nonparty 1

(1) On March 8, 2002, the 9,513 square meters wide from Pyeongtaek-si (number 1 omitted) was owned by the Defendant (the name of the Defendant was changed several times after its establishment, but it is called the Defendant). On March 8, 2002, the said hospital was divided into 6,813 square meters (the site of ○○ Hospital operated by ○○ Foundation, which is the site of the said hospital; hereinafter “the instant hospital”) and 2,700 square meters (the site of the building used as soup 3 omitted), namely, the said soup bank was divided into 2,70 square meters (the site of the ground building used as soup dry, and the said soup bank was hereinafter “the soup bank”).

(2) On October 14, 2002, Nonparty 1 acquired the ownership of a soup bank of this case and its site, and Nonparty 2, the Plaintiff’s punishment, invested several billion won in the instant hospital, but failed to return the investment amount properly. As such, Nonparty 1’s land for the instant hospital was provisionally seized on October 17, 2002 at KRW 50 million.

(3) On the other hand, around February 2002, the Plaintiff leased the soup bank of this case from Nonparty 3 in a deposit of KRW 400 million, and Nonparty 1 did not accept the obligation to refund the deposit deposit to the Plaintiff while taking over the instant hospital, and did not pay the deposit. On July 7, 2003, the Plaintiff attached the soup bank and the land of this case with the claim amount of KRW 400 million as of July 7, 2003, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Nonparty 1 for the claim for the refund of the deposit deposit money against the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Nonparty 1 for the claim for the refund of the deposit deposit amount of KRW 2003,000,000,000 for the land and the building site of this case owned by Nonparty 1.

(4) In the above lawsuit on February 16, 2004, the conciliation was concluded to the effect that "the defendant (the non-party 1) paid 340 million won to the plaintiff (the defendant of this case) by April 15, 2004 as a result of the soup and the repayment of the soup and the soup of the soup and the soup of the soup, and if delay, he shall pay damages for delay at the rate of 20% per annum from April 16, 2004 to the day of full payment" (the above conciliation debt of this case hereinafter referred to as "the debt of this case").

(5) On October 26, 2004, Nonparty 1 paid only the amount of KRW 20 million to the Plaintiff via Nonparty 4, who was the Defendant’s chief director, with respect to the instant adjustment payment obligation.

(6) Meanwhile, on November 19, 2004, Nonparty 1 donated the instant soup bank and its site on the condition that the Defendant takes over the instant liquidation payment against the Plaintiff on the condition that Nonparty 5 (the Defendant was appointed as the president on November 4, 2004, but resigned on September 6, 2005) who was appointed as the president of the Defendant would take over the instant hospital, and Nonparty 5 paid KRW 200 million out of the instant liquidation payment to the Plaintiff on December 2, 2004.

B. Issuance of the check by Nonparty 5 and endorsement by the Defendant

(1) On February 28, 2005, Nonparty 5, who assumed office as the president of the Defendant, paid to the Plaintiff a total of KRW 400 million, including the instant amount of the instant amount of the conciliation debt, etc., which the Plaintiff acquired from Nonparty 1, but the amount of KRW 70 million out of which was paid up to March 17, 2005 and agreed to issue a check of shares to pay the remainder of KRW 330 million.

(2) In accordance with the agreement, Nonparty 5 issued the following shares of shares and endorsed under the name of the Defendant, and issued the following shares of shares to the Plaintiff.

(A) Check number: Ea 0255899 (hereinafter referred to as “the check number per unit”).

Issuer: ○○ Medical Operator Nonparty 5

Par value: 165 million won (in original face value 70 million won per unit, the par value per unit was changed)

Dates: March 15, 2005

Issuing Area: Suwon Bank and Payment Area: The Dongwon Bank Branch of Hanmi Bank of Korea

(B) Check number: Ea 0255900 (hereinafter referred to as “the second unit number”).

Issuer: ○○ Medical Operator Nonparty 5

Par value: 20 million won

Dates: February 28, 2005

Issuing Area: Suwon Bank and Payment Area: The Dongwon Bank Branch of Hanmi Bank of Korea

(3) However, the parties, non-party 5, and the plaintiff agreed to change the face value of the per unit of this case as KRW 100 million, the issue date as of April 18, 2005, the face value of the second unit of this case as of April 18, 2005, the issue date as of KRW 300 million, and the issue date as of April 18, 2005. The contents of each unit of this case changed according to the agreement.

(4) After that, on April 18, 2005, the Plaintiff presented each of the instant units of shares at the payment place, but refused payment on the ground of non-transaction.

C. Repayment of the amount of liquidation of this case

(1) On the other hand, when each of the instant units of shares was rejected, the Plaintiff filed an application for a compulsory auction against the land and building owned by Nonparty 1 on July 14, 2005, and the Seoul Central District Court decided to commence compulsory auction against the land and building for the land and building for the land and building for the land and building for the land and building for the relocation.

(2) Accordingly, Nonparty 1 asserted against the Plaintiff that the obligation of the instant conciliation amount was extinguished by the Defendant’s assumption of debt or repayment with the Defendant’s exemption. On July 6, 2007, Nonparty 1 filed a lawsuit seeking objection against the instant conciliation amount. On October 26, 2007, the court below rejected the Defendant’s judgment of 20 million won out of the principal and interest of the instant conciliation amount (20 million won repaid through Nonparty 4 on October 26, 2004 and 20 million won repaid through Nonparty 5 on December 2, 2004), but the remainder of KRW 167,541,917 and damages for delay were deemed to remain at the rate of KRW 167,541,917, and the compulsory execution of the instant conciliation amount against the Plaintiff (Plaintiff 1) by the date on which the instant conciliation amount exceeded KRW 167,500,000,000,000,000 per annum 164,27197.

(3) Nonparty 1 appealed to the above judgment as Seoul High Court Decision 2007Na75428, and on January 21, 2008, the Defendant repaid KRW 282,00,000 in total, including the remainder of the principal and interest of Nonparty 1 and the costs of litigation, and the costs of prepayment for compulsory auction by subrogation of Nonparty 1 on the Plaintiff on January 21, 2008. Nonparty 1 withdrawn the above appeal on February 14, 2008.

[Reasons for Recognition: Facts without dispute; Gap's 1 through 3, 7 through 9, 11, 12; Gap's 1 through 3, 7; Eul's 1 through 7; the witness's 5 part of testimony and the whole purport of oral argument]

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Each of the units of this case is issued for the payment of KRW 200 million acquired by the plaintiff among the remaining debts of KRW 200 million and claims against the defendant of KRW 500 million against the plaintiff of the non-party 1 who was acquired by the defendant.

However, since each of the instant units of shares was rejected, the Defendant, as an endorser, has the obligation to pay the Plaintiff the face value of each of the instant units of shares. On the other hand, the Plaintiff paid KRW 200 million to the Plaintiff out of the underlying claim of each of the instant units of shares. Therefore, the Defendant has the obligation to pay the remainder of KRW 200 million to the Plaintiff.

B. Defendant’s assertion

(1) Since each of the units of this case is altered at par value and issue date, the defendant is only obligated to assume liability according to the entries before alteration.

(2) The Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant was extinguished by prescription after six months from the date of presentment for payment.

(3) At the time of the establishment of the Defendant Hospital, Nonparty 2, one’s own punishment, invested the sum of KRW 195 million by Nonparty 2, including KRW 35 million through Nonparty 2, and the Plaintiff’s total amount of KRW 50 million by Nonparty 2 and the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with Nonparty 6, who was the chief director of the Defendant at the time of February 2002, to secure the payment of KRW 35 million in its own investment, for the set-up of KRW 400 million, and the Plaintiff did not pay the deposit amount of KRW 400 million to the Defendant separately from the above investment amount. Therefore, the Defendant’s obligation against the Plaintiff is merely KRW 45 billion, which Nonparty 6 agreed to return the said investment amount of KRW 350 million as the security deposit.

Since Nonparty 4, upon accepting the Defendant on July 12, 2002, concluded a settlement agreement again between Nonparty 2 and the Plaintiff and Nonparty 2 on a total of KRW 500 million, the Defendant’s obligation to the Plaintiff is limited to the Plaintiff’s share determined internally between the Plaintiff and Nonparty 2 out of KRW 500 million.

Ultimately, the Defendant’s debt against the Plaintiff is an internal share of the Plaintiff between the Plaintiff and Nonparty 2, and the Defendant paid the Plaintiff a total of KRW 52 billion, and the Defendant’s debt against the Plaintiff was all extinguished due to repayment (the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff’s claim for the payment of the payment of the payment of the payment of the payment of the payment of the payment of the purchase price of the instant case, even though the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant was extinguished due to the above reasons, is contrary to the abuse of rights or the principle of good faith).

3. Determination

A. Determination on the cause of the claim

According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay 200 million won to the plaintiff out of the face value of each of the units of this case as an endorser of each of the units of this case.

B. Defendant’s assertion and judgment

(1) Determination as to the assertion of alteration of each of the units of this case

As acknowledged earlier, the plaintiff changed the issue date and par value of each of the instant units of this case under the agreement with the non-party 5, who was the president at the time of the issuer of each of the instant units of this case. Thus, the defendant's assertion that each of the instant units of this case was modified is without merit, and therefore, the defendant is liable to the plaintiff for the damages arising from the changed entries in each of the units

(2) Determination on the assertion of extinctive prescription

The fact that the lawsuit of this case was filed after six months from the date of presentment (10 days from the date of issue) of each of the units of this case is obvious.

However, according to the evidence evidence Nos. 5 and 10 of this case, the plaintiff specified preserved claims as KRW 200,000,000,000 for each of the bonds of this case, and received a decision of provisional seizure against the land of this case owned by the defendant in Sungwon District Court Sung-nam branch of Sungwon District Court, 2005Kadan50411, and according to the above decision of provisional seizure, it can be recognized that the registration of provisional seizure was completed as of May 9, 2005, and the above provisional seizure is maintained until now. There is no counter-proof, and on the other hand, Article 168 of the Civil Act provides that the provisional seizure as a cause of interruption of prescription cannot be said to have been exercised by the creditor by provisional seizure. Thus, since the plaintiff's claim for provisional seizure has no effect of the interruption of prescription against each of the bonds of this case as 200,000,000 won during the period in which the preservation of provisional seizure remains effective, the claim of this case has no special reasons for interruption of prescription against the bonds of this case.

(3) Determination on the assertion of repayment

According to the non-party 5's testimony and oral argument, the non-party 5 issued each of the units of this case after he repaid to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 20 million on October 26, 2004 and KRW 200 million on December 2, 200 of the same year. Since the defendant endorsed it, the above KRW 220 million is without merit in the defendant's assertion that the amount of KRW 220 million is repaid for each of the units of this case.

Next, as to the Defendant’s claim for reimbursement of KRW 282,00,000 on January 21, 2008, Nonparty 1, at the time of issuance and endorsement of each of the instant shares, was liable to the Plaintiff for “167,541,917 won and the amount calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from December 3, 2004 to the date of full payment,” and Nonparty 1’s debt against the Plaintiff was jointly and severally liable with the Defendant’s obligation under each of the instant shares to the Plaintiff.

However, as determined earlier, the Defendant, at the time of subrogation by the Defendant, bears the Defendant’s obligation of KRW 245,172,602 [20 million + KRW 45,172,602 [20 million + KRW 45,172,602 (20 million + KRW 0.06 x 0.06 x 1,374/365, and less than KRW)], which is the amount calculated by the annual rate of 6% from April 18, 2005 to January 21, 2008.

On the other hand, the plaintiff includes litigation costs and prepayment costs, but it is true that the amount of repayment for the remainder of the non-party 1's obligation according to the conciliation protocol of this case reaches KRW 267,541,917, including interest 100 million. In the end, the defendant's obligation according to the statement of each unit of this case against the plaintiff of this case has been fully repaid and extinguished (In addition, although the defendant made repayment of KRW 282,00,000 on behalf of the non-party 1, it shall be the repayment of his obligation, and it shall be the repayment of his obligation, and since the statute of limitations has expired more than the obligation for which the statute of limitations has expired, it is reasonable to appropriate for the defendant's subrogation to cover the obligation for which the statute of limitations has expired)

C. Sub-committee

Ultimately, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant for the check was extinguished by the lapse of the statute of limitations and the repayment.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed for lack of reason.

Judges Cho Jin-chul et al.