1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as follows, except where the defendant added the following judgments as to the matters alleged in the trial of the court of first instance, and therefore, it refers to the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional matters to be determined;

A. The Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff received the instant enforcement and construction right from C, and subsequently promoted the instant business, sold the said enforcement and construction right to the Stex Co., Ltd. for KRW 400 million on May 18, 2005, and received a down payment of KRW 100 million and an intermediate payment.

Therefore, as long as the Plaintiff sold the above enforcement and construction right to the Stex Co., Ltd. on the premise that the instant project is normally carried out, the cash storage certificate of this case shall be deemed invalid when the Plaintiff and C entered into a contract on the enforcement and construction right of this case.

B. According to the statement No. 2 of the judgment and the testimony of the witness I of the trial party Eul, the plaintiff entered into a contract to sell the enforcement and execution rights of the instant case taken over from C with C on May 18, 2005 with C on May 18, 2005, and received both the down payment and the intermediate payment KRW 170 million.

However, it is reasonable to view the proviso of cash custody certificate as the content of the agreement to invalidate when the Plaintiff acquired the enforcement of the instant case and the execution right ultimately, and the fact that C, if not holding the enforcement of the instant case and the execution right, acquired money by deceiving the Plaintiff as if C did not possess the execution right of the instant case, is as seen earlier. Therefore, even if the Plaintiff sold the said enforcement right again to Stex without authority, it is a matter to be resolved between the Plaintiff and Stex, and it is not different from the fact that the Plaintiff did not acquire the enforcement right of the instant case from C, and thus, the cash custody of the instant case is valid.