Gwangju

b. the place of service

Law Firm Barun Law LLC

Attorney Kim Yong-il, Park Jong-sung, Han-sung, Lee Jin-jin, and Kim beneficiary

Gwangju

b. the place of service

Seoul

Seoul Place of Service

Representative Director 100

Law Firm Lee & Lee, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Attorney Im Jin-kin et al.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. The plaintiff bears the total cost of the lawsuit due to the principal lawsuit. The plaintiff bears the total cost of the lawsuit due to the participation in the lawsuit.

The defendant shall pay 10 million won to the plaintiff and 20% per annum from January 1, 2009 to the day of full payment.

L. L.D. pay the amount of money calculated at a rate.

Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

A. On October 29, 2004, the Defendant lent a considerable amount of money to the non-party 00 General Construction Co., Ltd., and completed the registration of the establishment of the right to collateral security (hereinafter referred to as the "right to collateral security (hereinafter referred to as the "right to collateral security") equivalent to the maximum debt amount, No. 14178, Nov. 3, 2004, as to ○○ apartment 00, 100,000,000,000 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 won, owned by the non-party 1, 200.

B. On September 8, 2005, the Plaintiff’s Intervenor, who is the real owner of ○○ Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “00 construction”), agreed that 00 construction between the Defendant’s actual owner, from the Defendant, would take over the instant mortgage and the instant secured debt at KRW 1 billion. On the same day, the Plaintiff’s Intervenor issued one copy of the cashier’s check (hereinafter “the instant cashier’s check”) which caused 100 million face value to Hong○○, and 00 Red 00 issued the Plaintiff’s cashier a copy of the instant cashier’s checks, stating the phrase “a confirmation that the said cashier’s checks are kept before entering into a contract.”

C. 00 Construction in accordance with the above agreement between the Plaintiff’s Intervenor and Red 00, and the Defendant September 13, 2005

The transfer contract with respect to the right to collateral security and the right to collateral security (hereinafter referred to as the "transfer contract of this case") was concluded, and the plaintiff supplementary intervenor jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation to pay money under the transfer contract of this case to the defendant of ○○ Construction. The main contents of the transfer contract of this case are as follows. (1) The defendant shall transfer the right to collateral security of this case and the right to collateral security to 00 construction to 1 billion won on the date of the contract. (2) OO Construction shall pay KRW 100 million on October 31, 2005, KRW 100 million on the date of the contract, KRW 30 million on November 30, 2005, KRW 100 million on the same year, KRW 100 million on December 30, 2006, and KRW 500 million on January 30, 2006, respectively, and deliver a promissory note to 00 million on February 28, 2006.

D. Construction 00 delivered to the Defendant on the date of the above contract under the transfer contract of this case 4 copies of promissory notes with the face value of 100 million won on October 30, 2005 and 3 promissory notes with the face value of 200 million won on February 28, 2006 (the later payment date was extended on May 31, 2006; June 31, 2006) for the payment of the transfer price of this case to the Defendant on the date of the above contract of this case. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 19035, Nov. 30, 2005; Presidential Decree No. 1900, Dec. 30, 2006; Presidential Decree No. 19006, Feb. 28, 2006>

E. Meanwhile, at the time of entering into the instant transfer contract, the Defendant did not refund the instant cashier’s checks to the Plaintiff’s Intervenor, and instead stated the phrase “to receive the checks regularly” on the copy of the instant cashier’s checks, and issued them to the Plaintiff’s Intervenor.

F. On October 19, 2005, the Defendant completed the registration of transfer of the right to collateral security in the instant case to YY (the Intervenor at the time was the representative director and the actual inspection; hereinafter hereinafter hereinafter hereinafter 'the Plaintiff’) designated 00 construction in accordance with the instant transfer contract.

G. Of the bills issued as the transfer proceeds of the instant right to collateral security, the face value of KRW 100 million was approved on the date of payment, but the three copies of the bills causing the face value of KRW 200,000 have not been approved.

H. Around March 2006, the Defendant transferred a promissory note with a face value of KRW 400 million issued by ○○ Construction as collateral to ○○○○○○○, with a face value of KRW 380,000,000,000,000,000, and ○○ Construction ultimately, ○○ Construction bears the Defendant’s obligation to pay a face value of KRW 1 billion (three copies of a face value of KRW 200,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,00,00).

I. As of the date of the closing of argument in the instant case, the Defendant recognized that the amount equivalent to KRW 480,000,000 was paid out of the total amount of KRW 1 billion.

(j) On April 30, 2008, the Plaintiff’s Intervenor transferred the right to return the instant cashier’s checks to the Defendant on the premise that the Plaintiff’s Intervenor had a claim to return the instant cashier’s checks to the Defendant. On December 4, 2008, the Plaintiff’s Intervenor notified the Defendant of the transfer, and the said notification was issued to the Defendant around that time.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 3-1, 2, Gap evidence 4, 5, Eul evidence 2, 3, Eul evidence 10, 11, Eul evidence 12-1 through 4. Eul evidence 13, Eul evidence 14-1, 14-8, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s issuance of the instant cashier’s checks to Red ○○, the real owner of 00 construction, as the Defendant’s actual owner, shows that 00 construction has the financial ability to take over the instant collateral. At that time, when the Plaintiff’s Intervenor and Red ○○ entered into the instant collateral transfer contract in a fixed manner between ○○ Construction and the Defendant, the Defendant agreed to return the instant cashier’s checks to the Plaintiff’s Intervenor. Since the Plaintiff’s Intervenor transferred the instant returned claim to the Plaintiff again, the Defendant transferred the instant returned claim to the Plaintiff pursuant to the aforementioned return agreement.

The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff is obligated to pay KRW 100 million of the instant cashier’s checks.

B. On the contrary, the Defendant asserts that, around the contrary, 100 million won of the cashier’s checks of this case were paid as bills, the Defendant paid the transfer price of this case to compensate for the fact that the transfer price of this case was not immediately paid, or paid as part of the transfer price of this case. In addition, the Defendant ordered the payment of the transfer price of this case.

The Defendant still holds a claim for the transfer price equivalent to KRW 520 million against the Plaintiff’s Intervenor on the ground that the bills issued are not approved. If the right to claim a return against the said KRW 100 million by the Plaintiff’s Intervenor is recognized, it is asserted that the said right to claim a return is offset against the balance of the above claim for transfer price.

3. Determination

Therefore, in light of the fact that 0 billion won of the instant cashier’s checks were issued by the Plaintiff’s Intervenor 2 to check whether the instant cashier’s checks were issued from the Plaintiff’s Intervenor 1, 000,000,000 won to the Plaintiff’s Intervenor 2, and that 30 billion won of the instant cashier’s checks were issued to the Plaintiff’s Intervenor 1. The Defendant’s representative director, at the time of the instant transfer contract, testified to the effect that the instant cashier’s checks should be returned if all of the bills received at the time of the instant transfer contract were approved. However, it is insufficient to acknowledge that the instant cashier’s checks were issued to the Defendant and the Plaintiff’s Intervenor 2,000,000 won of the instant cashier’s checks at the time of the instant transfer contract, and that the instant cashier’s checks were issued to the Plaintiff’s Intervenor 2,000,000 won of the instant checks at the interest rate of 0 billion won, and that the instant cashier’s checks were not issued to the Plaintiff’s.

Ultimately, since the existence of the return agreement on the cashier's check of this case between the plaintiff assistant intervenor and the defendant is not recognized, the plaintiff's claim of this case based on this premise is without merit, and as long as the plaintiff's claim is rejected, the plaintiff's conjunctive defense is not judged.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, the defendant's appeal is accepted, and the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as per Disposition.

Judges Park Jeong-hee

Judgment of the Prosecutor