물품대금
Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the plaintiff falling under the following amount shall be revoked.
The defendant.
1. Determination on the claim of KRW 78,000,000 for the amount of goods
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with a site for gambling from around 2000 to March 2008, and did not receive KRW 78,000,000 for the price of the goods.
The Plaintiff completed the registration of the establishment of the right to collateral security on the real estate held by the Defendant’s wife in order to secure the above claim for the purchase price of goods (Provided, That the registration of the right to collateral security was cancelled without entirely distributing to the Plaintiff at the subsequent auction procedure conducted thereafter, without being distributed to the Plaintiff as the mortgagee). Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to pay to the Plaintiff the price for the goods unpaid and the delayed damages.
2) The price for the goods claimed by the Plaintiff was incurred from the transaction with G, a South-North of the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and is irrelevant to the Defendant. The Defendant collected whether the price for the goods occurred and the amount thereof.
B. The judgment of the court below is a mortgage established by settling only the maximum amount of the debt to be secured and reserving the determination of the debt in the future. Since it is established with a view to securing several unspecified claims arising from the continuous transactional relationship within a certain limit in the future, separate from the act of establishing the right to collateral security, there is a legal act establishing the right to collateral security separately from the act of establishing the right to collateral security. The burden of proof as to whether there was a legal act establishing the right to collateral security at the time of establishing the right to collateral security has been asserted its existence (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da72070 delivered on December 24, 2009). Upon full view of the written statements and changes in evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 7, the plaintiff entered into the contract with E and E on March 11, 2008, and concluded the above contract with the defendant's wife and E on March 11, 200, 300 won and 160 square meters (hereinafter referred to as "F land").