Plaintiff (Withdrawal) Limited Liability Company

Succession Intervenor Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Gyeongwon, Attorneys Hho-ho et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Defendant (Attorney Park Sung-won et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

April 20, 2006

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2003Gahap56460 Delivered on May 27, 2005

1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the intervenor succeeding to the plaintiff who subsequently ordered payment shall be revoked.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff's successor 58,250,000 won with 6% interest per annum from July 27, 2001 to May 4, 2006 and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

2. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the defendant revoked the part against the defendant who ordered the plaintiff's successor to pay in excess of 87,438,50 won and 6% per annum from July 27, 2001 to May 27, 2005, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment. The plaintiff's primary claim corresponding to the revoked part is dismissed.

3. The plaintiff's successor's remaining appeal is dismissed.

4. The total cost of the lawsuit shall be three minutes, and one part shall be borne by the intervenor succeeding to the plaintiff, and the remaining part by the defendant.

1. Purport of claim

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff's successor 218,317,443 won and 6% interest per annum from July 27, 2001 to the service date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

2. Purport of appeal

A. The Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff: The part against the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff seeking payment under the judgment of the first instance court shall be revoked. The Defendant shall pay to the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff 130,878,943 won and 6% per annum from July 27, 2001 to the service date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

(b) Defendant: as set forth in paragraph (2) of this Article.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

A. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for the addition or modification of the judgment of the first instance court, and therefore, it is identical to the entry of the reasoning for the judgment of the first instance. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. On the 2nd page of the judgment of the first instance court, the term “large exhibition” in the 16th sentence is regarded as the term “Si/Gu”.

C. The “performance to quasi-Possessor of a claim” under Sections 7 through 9 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, Etc. of the First Instance is amended as follows.

(3) Performance to quasi-Possessor of the claim

(A) Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of arguments as indicated in Gap evidence Nos. 12, 13, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 4, the defendant filed a lawsuit against the defendant on Nov. 6, 1999 9 Gohap209. 200Na425, Daejeon High Court No. 20008, the appellate court's decision No. 2500, 700 (the above 1. 1. 3. 4. 1. 5) against the defendant on the ground that the defendant's insurance money No. 254,648,50 (the above 1. 4. 7. 1. 1. 1. 2. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 4. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 5. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 2. 1. 1. 3 of this case's claim against the defendant

(B) The defendant paid KRW 144,193,464 to the non-party 1 in accordance with the purport of the above judgment of the appellate court during the period of the above appellate trial. Since the judgment of the appellate court became final and conclusive by dismissal of the appeal, it is reasonable to deem that the defendant believed that the creditor of the above KRW 144,193,464 was non-party 1 and there was no negligence in reliance on such belief, the above KRW 144,193,464 was valid as repayment to the non-party 1. Thus, the defendant's defense asserting that the above part of the debt was extinguished is reasonable (the plaintiff asserted that there was negligence in the payment as long as the defendant paid the above KRW 14,193,464 to the non-party 1 before the previous lawsuit becomes final and conclusive. However, even if the defendant had continued to pay the above KRW 144,193,464 to the non-party 1, the above judgment of the appellate court became final and conclusive.)

(C) the scope of the extinguished debt;

① As seen earlier, KRW 87,438,50 of the insurance money corresponding to the part of the instant building is the part that was entirely paid to the Plaintiff pursuant to the assignment order of the instant case, and is not included in KRW 144,193,464, which was paid by the Defendant to Nonparty 1.

② 58,250,000 won for collection by Nonparty 3

The Defendant filed a lawsuit against Nonparty 3 at around 2003, the Seoul Central District Court 2003Da442255, which sought the payment of the above 58,250,000 won and damages for delay. However, on August 24, 2004, Nonparty 3 filed an appeal against Nonparty 3 at Seoul High Court 2004Na64717, but the above judgment became final and conclusive around that time, on April 14, 2005. In light of the above 14,193,464, the Defendant’s repayment of KRW 108,464, the remainder of the collection amount of KRW 35,234,464 (the amount of KRW 108,465, the damages for delay which the Defendant lost the above amount of KRW 108,505,60,500, the damages for delay which the Defendant did not actually claim against Defendant 1.

(B) The first assignment order of this case was issued on the basis of the instant right to collateral security and sale security and became effective on the claim amount. Although the Defendant asserted this purport, the above Daejeon High Court Decision 2000Na4225 and Supreme Court Decision 2002Da72712 decided that the remainder of the above insurance money less the above insurance money i.e., the above insurance money i., 648,500 and ii) and the damages for delay should be paid to Nonparty 1 was finalized. However, since the final judgment on the above case is not effective only between Nonparty 1 and the Defendant, the Plaintiff’s successor is based on the subrogation of the right to collateral security and sale security, and thus, it is not affected by the effect of the seizure and collection order of Nonparty 3 Co., Ltd., the Plaintiff’s successor still filed a claim against the Defendant based on the assignment order of this case for the reason that it does not affect the validity of the seizure and collection order of Nonparty 1.

③ Therefore, among the total insurance claim that has the effect of the assignment order of the instant case, the part that the Plaintiff could seek a separate claim is not included in KRW 145,68,50 (gold KRW 87,438,500 + KRW 58,250,000) that was extinguished as repayment to the quasi-Possessor of the claim, which was extinguished as a result of the instant assignment order’s performance to the quasi-Possessor of the claim.

D. The amendment of the Sub-section 21 to the Sub-section 4 of the Judgment of the first instance to the Sub-section 10 of the Sub-section 9 is as follows.

From July 27, 2001, the day following the day on which the assignment order of the first assignment order of this case was issued to the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Defendant damages for delay at each rate of 6% per annum as stipulated in the Commercial Act and 20% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment, which is deemed reasonable for the Defendant to dispute as to the existence and scope of the obligation.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's primary claim in this case is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining primary claim and conjunctive claim are dismissed without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance which partially different conclusion is unfair, part of the appeal by the plaintiff's succeeding intervenor is accepted, the part against the plaintiff's succeeding intervenor who ordered payment under Paragraph (1) of the judgment of the court of first instance ordering the defendant to pay the above amount. The defendant's appeal is accepted, and the part against the defendant who ordered payment exceeding the amount under Paragraph (2) of the judgment of the court of first instance (the part against the plaintiff's succeeding intervenor as to the above amount of KRW 87,438,500 from May 28, 2005 to May 4, 2006, which is the date of the judgment of first instance, shall not be affected against the plaintiff). The plaintiff's primary claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed, and the remaining appeal of the plaintiff is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Park Jong-dae (Presiding Judge) Lee (Presiding Judge)