1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Co.”) is the executor of the instant officetel, which is an officetel constructed on the land B and two parcels of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant officetel”), and the Daesung Industrial Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Mosung Industry”) is the contractor of the said construction work.

B. Around July 2002, the Plaintiff entered into a collective household loan agreement (hereinafter “instant loan agreement”). According to the loan agreement, the Plaintiff: (a) extended part payments to buyers within the limit of 30% of the total sales price of the instant officetel (13,515,461,400 won) within the limit of 30% of the total sales price of the instant officetel (13,515,461,400 won), and (b) deposited the loan into a deposit account designated by the Dae Industrial and Co., Ltd. (Article 2); (c) deposited the loan to buyers (Article 3(2)); (d) the Plaintiff’s intermediate payment falls under the loss of profits under the basic terms and conditions for the Plaintiff’s bank credit transaction; and (e) the Plaintiff’s repayment of the loan to buyers without delay despite the Plaintiff’s claim for reimbursement, Dae Industrial and Ko Business cancelled the sales contract and the Plaintiff’s intermediate payment to buyers and the Plaintiff’s principal and interest within three months.

(Article 4). (c)

Around August 28, 2002, the Defendant entered into a contract with the Co-business to purchase the instant officetel 12:2 debentures (137 rooms and 1039 rooms) with each purchase price of 85,715,000 won (17,140,000 won, 17,143,146,000 won, each of the intermediate payment of 17,146,000 won, and paid the down payment of 34,280,000 won (17,140,000 x 2) pursuant to the above loan agreement. Pursuant to the above loan agreement, each of the loan agreements prepared at the time was made.