National Agricultural Cooperative Federation (Attorney So-young, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Dong-hee Development Co., Ltd. and 4 (Seoulnam Law Firm, Attorneys Kim Yong-han et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Intervenor 1 and 1 (Law Firm Changwon, Attorneys Yellow-hun et al., Counsel for the supplementary intervenor-appellant)

September 30, 2008

1. As to Defendant Dong-hee Development Co., Ltd. and Dong bank Construction, it is confirmed that the Korea Land Corporation deposited by Changwon District Court No. 1663 on April 25, 2007 with 1.577 billion won out of 1,983, 313, 300 won, which was deposited by Changwon District Court No. 1663 on April 25, 2007.

2. The claim against Defendant Republic of Korea, Kim Jong-si, and Defendant 4 (Defendant 3 of the Supreme Court and the judgment of the second instance) is dismissed.

3. The costs of litigation incurred between the Plaintiff, Defendant Dong-hee Development Co., Ltd. and Dong Dong-dong Construction Co., Ltd. shall be borne by the relevant Defendants. The costs of litigation incurred between the Plaintiff, Defendant Republic of Korea, Gyeongnam-si, and Defendant 4 shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the costs of litigation incurred by participation

On April 25, 2007, the Korea Land Corporation confirmed that 1.573 billion won out of 1,983, 313, and 300 won deposited by the Changwon District Court was the Plaintiff on April 25, 2007.

1. Basic facts

If evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 2-1 to 5, 3-1, 2, 3, 4, 7, and 9 of evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3-1, 2, 3, 4, 9 are considered in light of the whole purport of the pleading, the following facts

A. On August 19, 2002, Defendant Dong-dong Development Co., Ltd. and Korea Land Corporation agreed to return to Defendant Dong-dong Development Co., Ltd. the amount calculated by adding the legal interest to the remaining amount calculated by deducting the down payment amount of KRW 362,412,00,00 and the cost required for ownership recovery, if the instant sales contract is cancelled due to a cause attributable to Defendant Dong-dong Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

B. Defendant Dong-hee Development Co., Ltd. borrowed KRW 90 million from the Plaintiff (Seoul metropolitan branch; hereinafter the same shall apply) on March 29, 2004, and borrowed KRW 310 million on September 1, 2004, and paid each of the loans to the Korea Land Corporation as an intermediate payment for the sale of the instant land.

C. On March 29, 2004, when the instant sales contract is cancelled, the Plaintiff and Defendant Donghee Development Co., Ltd. entered into a contract on the transfer of KRW 1170 million and KRW 43 billion to the Plaintiff, out of the claim for the refund of the sales price to be acquired from the Korea Land Corporation, when the instant sales contract is cancelled.

D. On April 24, 2007, the Korea Land Corporation cancelled the instant sales contract on the grounds that Defendant Dong-hee Development Corporation delayed the payment of intermediate payments.

E. On April 25, 2007, the Korea Land Corporation prepared a notice of assignment of claims and a written consent from the plaintiff with loans from Changwon District Court 1663 on April 25, 2007. "The defendant Dongj Development Co., Ltd., but the original notice of assignment of claims takes effect after the fixed date, but it is suspected that the plaintiff's failure to implement such notice has the effect of transferring claims. The notice of seizure of claims by the defendant's Republic of Korea to the defendant Dongj Development Co., Ltd., as 1,197,384, 190 won is sent on August 16, 2005. The above notice of seizure of claims was sent to 30,030,030,210 won and 123,415,590 won, and the provisional seizure of claims against the defendant Dongj Development Co.,, Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., as 205, 2015.

2. Determination as to the claim for Defendant Dong-hee Development Co., Ltd. and Dong-dong Comprehensive Construction Co., Ltd.

On March 29, 2004, when the sales contract of this case was cancelled, the Plaintiff and Donghee Development Co., Ltd. transferred to the Plaintiff a total of KRW 1.17 billion and KRW 1.573 billion among the claim for the return of the sales price to be acquired from the Korea Land Corporation and KRW 4.3 million to the Plaintiff. As recognized in paragraph (1), the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant Donghee Development Co., Ltd consented to the transfer of the claim to the Plaintiff before the provisional attachment order of the Defendant Dongdong Construction Co., Ltd. against the Defendant Dongdong Development Co., Ltd. was served on the Plaintiff., Ltd., the Defendant Dongdong Development Co., Ltd. did not dispute this. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s right to withdrawal of KRW 1.573 million among the instant deposit between the Plaintiff and Dongdong Development Co., Ltd., Ltd., and the Plaintiff’s right to reimbursement between the Plaintiff and Dongdong Development Co., Ltd., Ltd., and the Plaintiff’s right to claim against the Defendant Kim Dong Development Co., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., and the Plaintiff’s right to claim against the Plaintiff.

3. Determination as to the claim against Defendant Republic of Korea, Gyeong-do, and Defendant 4

A. The plaintiff, on March 29, 2004, accepted the fixed amount of KRW 1.177 billion with respect to the transferred claim of KRW 1.1 billion, and on September 1, 2004, approved the fixed amount of KRW 43 million with respect to the transferred claim of KRW 4.3 million. The Korea Land Corporation is a public office. Thus, the plaintiff's right is priority in relation to the relation with the defendant Republic of Korea, the Gyeongnam-do, and the defendant 4. Thus, the plaintiff's right to withdraw KRW 1.573 billion out of the deposited amount of this case is claimed to be the plaintiff.

B. Article 450(1) and (2) of the Addenda of the Civil Code provides that “The transferor shall not oppose any third party, other than the obligor, unless the obligor notifies the obligor of the transfer of nominative claim or consent.” Article 3(4) of the Addenda of the Civil Code provides that “The date on which the entry in the notarial deed is made shall be the fixed date.” No. 5-1, 2, and 11 of the No. 2, and No. 14 are indicated as “No. 2, 3, 400, 400, 300, 400, 400, 400,000,000, 400,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000.

4. Conclusion

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Finding-Appellee (Presiding Judge)