2. The defendant's remaining appeal is dismissed.

3. Of the total litigation costs, 35% of the total litigation costs shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and 65% by the Defendant.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1.86 billion won with 10% interest per annum from February 1, 2000 to the service date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

2. Purport of appeal

The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed.

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the whole purport of the pleadings in the entry of Gap evidence No. 3 and Eul evidence No. 10.

A. The plaintiff is a major shareholder. The defendant is a company established for the purpose of the main product manufacturing business, etc., and the financial situation has deteriorated due to the influence of the foreign exchange crisis that began at the end of the end of the time97, the company reorganization procedure was decided by the Incheon District Court on August 31, 200 after filing an application for the commencement of the company reorganization procedure with the Incheon District Court on August 31, 200. The reorganization court appointed only a different type of company as the defendant's administrator on July 14, 2001. The reorganization court decided to terminate the company reorganization procedure with the Seoul Heavy Industries Co., Ltd. on October 7, 2005 while the lawsuit in this case is pending, and the defendant taken over the status of the administrator of the Lee Jong-chul Industries Industries Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "the defendant"), regardless of whether before and after the commencement of the company reorganization procedure and the completion of the company reorganization procedure (hereinafter "the defendant").

B. The Plaintiff delivered KRW 1.866 billion to the Defendant on the date indicated in the attached Table on the current status of the loan (hereinafter “instant claim amount”).

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

(1) The argument

The Plaintiff borrowed 4 billion won to the Defendant at a rate of 10% per annum, but received repayment of the principal and interest at the rate of 2.139 million won per annum and 10% per annum, but sought payment of the remainder of the claim amount and the agreed interest at the rate of 10% per annum.

(2) Determination

A) The nature of the claim amount of this case

According to the evidence Nos. 3, 7-2, 11-2, 3, 11-2, 17, 18-2, 2000 won of the loan, Eul evidence Nos. 10, 10-18, and Eul evidence Nos. 20, part of Gap evidence No. 100, witness testimony of the court of first instance, part of witness testimony of the court of first instance, and witness appointment testimony of the court of first instance, the defendant applied for legal management before the court of reorganization around July 199, and requested the Lee Chang-soo, a major shareholder of the plaintiff, to make an investment in operating funds necessary for legal management. This opinion of the court of reorganization on Jan. 28, 200, stated that the above 4 billion won of the loan was invested in the defendant at the hearing of the court of reorganization, and the liquidation court still stated the defendant's debt-equity swap on the condition that the above 4 billion won of the loan was invested in the defendant.

B) The subject of the loan

In full view of Gap evidence No. 14, Eul evidence No. 20, part of Gap evidence No. 10, Eul evidence No. 10, witness testimony of the court of first instance, and witness appointment testimony of the court of first instance, the plaintiff's major shareholder of the plaintiff's Lee Chang-soo (the plaintiff's representative director and director of November 8, 199) was deemed to have a problem of making a loan of the claim of this case to the defendant as a major shareholder, but the principal of the loan was changed to the plaintiff. The Lee Chang-soo and Park Jong-chul lent his loan of KRW 80,000,000,000 to the plaintiff who disposed of the stocks of the Seoul shock Industry Co., Ltd., and the plaintiff lent it to the defendant as the claim of this case after borrowing the above evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 2, and Eul evidence No. 2, the principal of the loan of this case is not recognized.

C) Whether there exists an agreement of 10% per annum;

Although the plaintiff asserts that there was an interest agreement of 10% per annum with respect to the claim amount of this case, the evidence Nos. 1 cannot be used as evidence since there is no evidence to prove the authenticity of the petition amount of this case. The plaintiff's above assertion is insufficient to acknowledge it only by the descriptions of the evidence No. 2, No. 7-3, No. 8, and No. 24 through No. 28 of the evidence No. 28, and there is no other evidence to prove it.

B. Defendant’s assertion and judgment

(1) The argument

① Since the Plaintiff transferred the claim amount equivalent to KRW 700 million out of the claim amount of this case to a gardening industry corporation, the Plaintiff cannot exercise its claim amounting to KRW 700 million. ② Although the Plaintiff promised to invest KRW 4 billion, the Defendant suffered damages by unilaterally suspending investment, and thus, the claim amount of this case is set off against the equivalent amount of the claim amount as above.

(2) Determination

A) Transfer of claims

① In full view of the statements in the evidence No. 11-3 and No. 11-3 and part of the testimony of party’s choice as witness, the Plaintiff entered into a contract on May 16, 2002 with the gardening Industry Co., Ltd. to transfer monetary claims equivalent to KRW 700 million out of the claim amount. On May 17, 2002, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the assignment of the said assignment of claims with content certification and the fact that the notification has reached the Defendant around that time.

② As to this, the Plaintiff tried to set off a rent equivalent to KRW 700 million, which was paid to the Defendant by the Plaintiff with the claim equivalent to KRW 700 million, which was charged to the Defendant from the Plaintiff. However, although the Defendant agreed to invalidate the above assignment of claim by implied consent, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the claim equivalent to KRW 700,000,00, which was transferred to a gardening industry corporation by the Defendant was reverted to the Plaintiff again. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge this, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit (where the transfer contract was cancelled or cancelled after the notification of the transfer of nominative claim was made, the claim transferred will naturally be returned to the transferor. Therefore, if the assignment of claim was already notified to the obligor, the transferor cannot set up against the obligor (see Supreme Court Decision 93Da17379, Aug. 27, 1993) unless the assignee notifies the obligor of the fact of revocation, and there is no evidence to inform the Defendant of the cancellation of the above assignment from the gardening industry company.)

Ultimately, the defendant's assignment of claims is justified.

B) The portion set off with the claim for damages

As to the fact that the plaintiff unilaterally discontinued investment, Eul evidence Nos. 9, Eul evidence Nos. 10, Eul evidence Nos. 14, Eul evidence Nos. 19, Eul evidence Nos. 20, part of Eul evidence Nos. 20, and some of Eul evidence Nos. 20 are not trustable, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the above assertion by the defendant is without merit without any need to examine other points.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the claim amount of this case is a bond with no fixed period of time for payment, and thus, the plaintiff is deemed to have requested the performance of the obligation as the delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case to the defendant. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 1.61 billion won (1.861 billion won - 700 million won) excluding the KRW 700 million transferred to the gardening Industry Co., Ltd. from among the claim amount of this case and to pay damages for delay at the rate of 20% per annum under the Commercial Act from August 13, 2005 to September 19, 2006, when it is clear that the defendant raised a dispute as to the existence and scope of the obligation to perform, from August 13, 2005 to September 19, 2006, which is a date of full payment.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims shall be dismissed for reasons. Since the judgment of the court of first instance which partially different conclusions are unfair, the part against the defendant who ordered payment in excess of the above recognition amount in the judgment of the court of first instance which accepted part of the defendant's appeal and ordered payment in excess of the above recognition amount in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding

[Attachment Table of the Status of Loans]

Judges Hwang Ho-sung (Presiding Judge)