beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. The reasons for our court’s explanation concerning this case is the same as the part of the reasons for the judgment of the first instance, inasmuch as the addition of the following Paragraph 2 is deducted, thereby citing it in accordance with Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
(1) The defendant alleged that C does not sell its business rights to F Co., Ltd. until October 31, 2008 and issued the Promissory Notes and prepared a notarial deed. However, it is not possible to recognize the issuance of the Promissory Notes on the sole basis of each description of the evidence Nos. 10 and 11, and there is no other evidence.)
2. On June 2009, the Defendant asserts that the Defendant’s obligation to return the investment deposit has ceased to exist due to payment in kind, since the Plaintiff left the business site that the Defendant acquired from C and the Defendant to undertake the E development project as the collection of the investment deposit.
According to Gap evidence No. 3, the plaintiff can be acknowledged as having completed the registration of transfer of ownership under the name of the plaintiff on September 9, 2009 with respect to the real estate listed in attached Tables No. 11 through 35, and on the other hand, according to the whole purport of Gap evidence No. 3, 4, Gap evidence No. 8-1, 2, and 3 as to the real estate listed in attached Tables No. 1 through 6 as to the plaintiff on December 16, 2008, according to the whole purport of Gap evidence No. 3, No. 8-1, 2, and 3 as to the real estate listed in attached Tables No. 1 through 6 as of September 9, 2009.
8. The fact that the registration of transfer of ownership has been made on the ground of sale on June of the same year, and the Plaintiff entered into a contract to acquire real estate of 3,607m2 and 37m2 (not overlapped with the real estate listed in the attached Table 1) in the Ycheon-si, Seoul where the Defendant paid the down payment and the intermediate payment in order to secure the Defendant’s credit (including the instant investment) against the Defendant. The above transfer of ownership completed by the Plaintiff is a fraudulent act of the Seoul Guarantee Insurance Company.