1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. In accordance with the expansion of the purport of the claim by this court, the defendant shall make 350,787 to the plaintiff.

Basic Facts

The court's explanation on this part is the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part of the reasoning is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The defendant alleged by the plaintiff in the plaintiff's assertion stated in the letter of understanding of this case, and expressed his intention to assume the obligation to the plaintiff in E in the content of the statement of this case.

The judgment on the revocation of the fraudulent act in this case became final and conclusive, and the amount of claims against the plaintiff in this case was determined.

If the defendant's above declaration of conditional acceptance of the obligation, the defendant's declaration of acceptance with respect to the assumption of obligation is declared as the complaint of this case, and if conditional payment promise is made, the amount of payment becomes final and conclusive and became effective.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 350,787,049 and damages for delay.

The statement of the defendant in this case is merely the content of the pleading made by the defendant's legal representative in the revocation lawsuit of the fraudulent act in this case and cannot be viewed as the defendant's expression of intent.

(The contents of the statement in this case do not include the authority to perform the judicial act irrelevant to the method of attack and defense with respect to the case delegated by the attorney). The contents of the statement in this case did not promise to accept or pay the obligation, but did not meet the requirements of debt acquisition or payment

Since the assumption of an overlapping obligation with the obligor and the underwriter by agreement on the cause of the claim for the sale is a sort of contract for a third party, the obligee has the right to directly claim against the underwriter by either demanding performance of obligation against the underwriter or exercising other rights as the obligee (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Da56033, Sept. 13, 2013). From the instant memorandum of Understanding to May 31, 2010, the Defendant agreed to accept the E’s obligation for the construction work related to the instant construction, which was made from the instant protocol of Understanding to May 31, 2010, and from the content of the instant statement.