A. Defendant A Co., Ltd. is from December 6, 2012 for KRW 904,825,559 and KRW 834,674,874 among them.

A. On June 29, 1998, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with D to purchase KRW 38,876 square meters of land E in Cheongdo-gun, Chungcheongnam-do-do (which was then divided into KRW 38,754 square meters of land E and KRW 122 square meters of forest), G forest 2,777 square meters, H forest 3,570 square meters, and I forest 2,777 square meters of land in price for two billion.

Around that time, the Plaintiff filed an application with Do-Do-Gun for approval of the housing construction project plan for a project to build apartment houses with 1,150 households on the ground of the said E, G, H, I, J Forest, 264§³, K Forest, and 1,157 square meters (hereinafter “each of the instant lands”).

However, there is a problem such as filing a civil petition with Cheongdo-gun as the above sentence arises between the above D and his sentence. On December 18, 1999, the Plaintiff, by reducing the number of households on the ground of each of the instant land from Cheongdo-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-Gun-based housing construction project for a total of 604 households (hereinafter “instant project”) and promoted apartment construction project after obtaining approval for the housing construction project plan for the instant project.

The Plaintiff is liable for KRW 500,000 to D, including design costs for collective housing of KRW 1,150. The Plaintiff and D, around July 1999, drafted a sales contract in which KRW 1.5 billion was deducted from the above KRW 500,000,000 for the purchase price. However, the date of the sales contract was written on June 29, 1998, as stated in the previous sales contract.

B. On June 1, 2002 and October 15, 2002, the Plaintiff decided to borrow funds from Defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) in order to prevent the above auction on February 6, 2003, and completed the registration of ownership transfer of each of the instant land with respect to the Defendant Co., Ltd. as a security for the loan debt, and changed the name of all permissions for the instant project in the name of the Defendant Co., Ltd., but the Plaintiff was the aforementioned loan money.