Patom Co., Ltd.

피터벡운트파트너 페르뫼겐스페어발퉁 게엠베하 (소송대리인 변호사 오인섭 외 1인)

Defendant 1 and seven others (Attorneys Lee Young-ju et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Atoo Co., Ltd.

December 20, 2012

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2010Gahap58921 Decided August 25, 2011

1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

A. Of the instant lawsuit against Defendant 1, the part of the Plaintiff’s claim for the procedure of cancelling the registration of cancellation of the right to collateral security on one-half share out of the real estate stated in the attached list 3 against Defendant 1, and the lawsuit against Defendant New Mutual Savings Bank is dismissed.

B. The Plaintiff:

1) As to the real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 and 2, Defendant 2 shall implement the procedure for each of the restoration registration of the establishment registration of the neighboring real estate registration of the Seoul Central District Court No. 9303, Dec. 17, 2007, which was revoked and registered under No. 24708, Apr. 7, 2009, with respect to the 1/2 shares among the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 3. 3.

2) Defendant Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government shall express its intention of each acceptance on the registration of the restoration of the establishment of a mortgage on each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 and 2, on each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 and 2, on each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 3, on each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 3, and on each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 and 2, on each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 3, on each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 3, on each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 and No.

C. The plaintiff's remaining claims against the succeeding intervenors Co., Ltd. by the defendant Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the defendant 4, the Dog Construction Co., Ltd., and the defendant Newan Mutual Savings Bank's succeeding intervenors Co., Ltd., and all claims against the defendant Central Reporting Co., Ltd., and the ted Investment.

2. (a) Of the total cost of the lawsuit except the part resulting from an intervention.

1) 2/3 of the portion arising between the Plaintiff and Defendant 1 shall be borne by Defendant 1, and the remainder by the Plaintiff respectively.

2) The portion arising between the Plaintiff and Defendant 2 shall be borne by Defendant 2;

3) The Plaintiff, Defendant Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Defendant 4, Defendant 5, and Defendant Newan Mutual Savings Bank’s successor Intervenor Co., Ltd. 1/3 of the part arising between the Plaintiff and Defendant Gangnam-gu, Seoul Metropolitan Government, Defendant 4, Defendant 4, Defendant 5, and Defendant Newan Mutual Savings Bank’s successor Intervenor Co., Ltd., Ltd., and the remainder are borne by the Plaintiff respectively.

4) The Plaintiff bears the part arising between the Plaintiff and Defendant Central Daily Information Company, Telecommunications Investment Company, and Newan Mutual Savings Bank, and the part arising between them.

(b) Out of the expenses for participation;

1) The part 2/3 arising between the Plaintiff’s Intervenor and the Defendant 1 shall be borne by Defendant 1, and the remainder by the Plaintiff’s Intervenor, respectively.

2) The part arising between the Plaintiff’s Intervenor and the Defendant 2 shall be borne by the Defendant 2.

3) The part 1/3 of the part arising between the Plaintiff’s Intervenor and the Defendant Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Defendant 4, Defendant 5, and Defendant Newan Mutual Savings Bank’s succeeding Intervenor Co., Ltd. shall be borne by the Plaintiff’s Intervenor Co., Ltd., and the remainder by the Plaintiff’s Intervenor Co., Ltd.

4) The part arising between the Plaintiff’s Intervenor and the Defendant’s Central Assistant, Inc., Ltd., Telecommunications Investment, and Newan Mutual Savings Bank is assessed against the Plaintiff’s Intervenor.

The order No. 1-b and Defendant 1 performed the procedure for registration of recovery of the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage (No. 93033 of the Seoul Central District Court on Dec. 17, 2007, which was revoked and registered under No. 24708 of Apr. 7, 2009, with respect to the Plaintiff’s share of 1/2 of the real estate listed in the attached list No. 3 of the attached list No. 3, and the procedure for registration of recovery of the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage (No. 9303 of the Seoul Central District Court on Dec. 17, 2007, Gangnam-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the Seoul Central District Court, the defendant 4, the Si Forest Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Gu Forest Construction”), the Central Daily Trust, the Korea Telecommunications Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “the succeeding intervenor”), and the defendant Newan Mutual Savings Bank’s successor Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “the succeeding intervenor succeeded intervenor succeeded”)

1. Basic facts

The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 7, and 9 (including paper numbers) without dispute between the parties or in full view of the purport of the whole pleadings:

A. Each real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 and 2 was completed in the name of Nonparty 1 (the Nonparty in the judgment of the Supreme Court), and the real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 3 was completed in the name of Nonparty 2 and Defendant 2 (Defendant 2 in the judgment of the Supreme Court) on each one-half share under the name of Nonparty 2 and Defendant 2 (Defendant 2 in the judgment of the Supreme Court). However, as to each real estate listed in the separate sheet, the ownership registration was completed on each of the real estate registered in the separate sheet No. 93033 on December 17, 2007 with the maximum debt amount of KRW 2.6 billion, the debtor, Nonparty 1, 2, Defendant 2, and the Plaintiff of the mortgagee (title Plaintiff, the former Plaintiff, the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s trade name of the Plaintiff).

B. After that, on April 6, 2009, the registration of cancellation was completed as of April 7, 2009 (hereinafter “registration of cancellation of this case”) under the receipt No. 2708 on April 7, 2009 by the Seoul Central District Court, Gangnam Branch of the Seoul Central District Court (hereinafter “Seoul District Court”).

C. On the other hand, after the completion of the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage of this case or the cancellation registration of this case was completed, registration of each real estate listed in the separate sheet was completed as follows.

1) On February 15, 2008, among the real estate listed in the attached list No. 3 on the attached list No. 3, the registration of provisional seizure was completed for the claim amounting to KRW 1.5 billion for the claim amount and KRW 1.5 billion for the creditor corporation Central Report Co., Ltd.

2) On October 19, 2009, the registration of transfer of ownership in Nonparty 1 was completed on July 13, 2009 on Nonparty 2’s share in Nonparty 1, 2, out of the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 3 as of October 19, 2009.

3) On January 8, 2010, among the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2 and the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 3, the registration of seizure was completed, respectively, with the right holder, as the defendant Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

4) On March 8, 2010, with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet, the registration of creation of a mortgage, which was completed by Nonparty 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 2, was completed each of the maximum debt amount of KRW 3.5 billion.

5) On March 12, 2010, the registration of creation of a mortgage, each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet, was completed with the maximum debt amount of 2 billion won, the debtor spring management company, the debtor-mortgage, and the defendant Newan Mutual Savings Bank, respectively.

6) On April 27, 2010, the registration of the decision on compulsory commencement of auction was completed on April 27, 2010, with respect to the portion of non-party 1/2 among the real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 and 2 as well as the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 3

7) On April 30, 2010, among the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 3 as of April 30, 2010, the registration of the decision on compulsory commencement of auction was completed with respect to the creditor’s 1/2 shares in the non-party 1’s name.

8) On May 20, 2010, with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet, the registration of the decision on voluntary commencement of auction became final and conclusive on the creditor's interest rate construction, respectively.

D. On April 1, 2012, Nonparty 1: (a) died on April 1, 2012, and Defendant 1 (Defendant 1 of the Supreme Court Decision) inherited Nonparty 1 solely by Nonparty 1; and (b) Defendant Newan Mutual Savings Bank’s claim on the collateral security against spring management of the Defendant Newan Mutual Savings Bank was transferred in sequence to the AWn Group and the succeeding Intervenor; and (c) the succeeding Intervenor completed the registration of transfer of the establishment of the said mortgage on each real estate listed in the separate sheet on May 24, 2012

E. On the other hand, on April 20, 2010, the Plaintiff entered into a collective security transfer agreement with the Plaintiff’s Intervenor on September 9, 2009, under which the Plaintiff would restore the registration of the instant case in order to secure all obligations, such as early repayment due to nonperformance of obligation owed to the Plaintiff’s Intervenor with respect to unregistered overseas bonds with warrants equivalent to 390,000,000,000, and would transfer the collective security right on each real estate listed in the separate sheet to the Plaintiff’s Intervenor. On May 27, 2010, the Plaintiff notified Nonparty 1, Nonparty 2, and Defendant 2 of the transfer of the said collective security.

2. Determination on the legitimacy of a lawsuit

ex officio, the Plaintiff’s claim for the registration of cancellation of the instant registration on the portion of the Plaintiff’s 1/2 shares out of the real estate indicated in the separate sheet No. 3 against Defendant 1 was made against the owner at the time of cancellation of the registration, and the lawsuit seeking the implementation of the procedure for the registration of cancellation against Defendant 1, who is not the person responsible for registration, is illegal against the non-party eligible for registration. The real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 3, as at the time of cancellation of the registration of creation of the instant neighboring mortgage, the registration of ownership transfer was completed for each 1/2 shares in the name of Nonparty 2 and Defendant 2, but the fact that the registration of cancellation was completed on October 19, 2009, which was after the cancellation of the registration of creation of the instant neighboring mortgage under Nonparty 1’s name. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant 1, who was not the person responsible for registration, against the non-party 1, who was not the person responsible for registration, is unlawful.

Meanwhile, as seen earlier, Defendant Newan Mutual Savings Bank’s claim on each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet regarding spring management of the Defendant Newan Mutual Savings Bank was successively transferred to Y Group Co., Ltd., and the succeeding intervenor completed the registration of transfer of the establishment of the neighboring establishment of a mortgage on each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet on May 24, 2012, and the succeeding intervenor completed the registration of transfer of the establishment of a mortgage on May 24, 2012. The succeeding intervenor was at the trial, and the succeeding intervenor was at the trial, and the succeeding mutual Savings Bank was deemed to lose its standing as a party. As such, the succeeding intervenor’s lawsuit against Defendant Newan Mutual Savings Bank is unlawful since it was against a person without standing as a party.

3. Judgment on the merits

A. The allegations and issues of the parties

The plaintiff asserted that, by taking advantage of the status of the major shareholder, Nonparty 2, etc., did not repay the debt to the plaintiff while taking advantage of the status of the major shareholder who neglected the plaintiff's management right, the registration of recovery and cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the creation of the creation of the creation of the creation of the creation of the creation of the creation of the non-party 3, the representative director of the plaintiff at the time, was unjustly made and submitted to the registry, and the defendant 1 and Defendant 2 claimed that, instead of cancelling the registration of the establishment of the creation of the creation of the neighboring land of this case, the registration of cancellation of this case was completed for the plaintiff to secure the debt of the plaintiff, and the above debt was fully repaid. In addition, the defendants asserted that the registration of cancellation of this case was voluntarily made according to the plaintiff's intention, and thus, it does not become subject to the registration of recovery.

(b) Fact of recognition;

The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, 11, 12, 17 through 20, and Eul evidence No. 2 (including each number):

1) On March 23, 2007, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 2 billion to the new bank account of Defendant 2. As of March 23, 2007, the lease agreement was concluded between the Plaintiff, the lessor, and the Defendant 2 on March 23, 2007, with the lessee as the Plaintiff, Nonparty 2, Nonparty 1, and Defendant 2. As of March 23, 2007, the lease agreement was made with the content of KRW 2 billion for the underground floor, the second and seventh floors of ○ building (B) located outside Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul, and for two years from October 1, 2007.

2) On December 17, 2007, Nonparty 2, Nonparty 1, and Defendant 2 issued and delivered to the Plaintiff a promissory note with a face value of KRW 2.6 billion to the Plaintiff, and concluded a mortgage agreement on each real estate listed in the separate sheet, and completed the registration of establishment of a mortgage on each real estate listed in the separate sheet. As seen earlier, the registration of establishment of a mortgage on the previous real estate was cancelled on April 7, 2009.

3) After that, on May 11, 2009, the Plaintiff submitted an investment prospectus to the Financial Supervisory Service for offering capital increase with 10.14 billion won to the Financial Supervisory Service. The said investment prospectus contains the following: (a) the Plaintiff’s representative director, Nonparty 3, and the director in charge of reporting, prepared by Nonparty 4, “We directly confirm and examine the contents of the investment prospectus as a result of our representative director and the director in charge of reporting with due care; (b) there is no omission or false description or indication of the important descriptions; and (c) there is no description or indication of any description or indication that may cause serious misunderstanding by the users of the descriptions or indication indicated in this investment prospectus.”

"The plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with ○○ building (the ownership of Defendant 2 and two others) in the building site in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and 456.9 square meters, and 766.19 square meters in advance, and paid KRW 2 billion in advance. However, although the scheduled completion date of the construction has arrived due to financial problems, 130% of the amount of the loan was suspended and 90% of the total progress as of the date of submission, us completed 90% of the total progress as of the date of submission. It is dangerous that part of the advance payment will be distributed according to the order of priority if the scheduled occupancy or the completion of the construction is delayed after the completion of the construction, or if the auction procedure is commenced by the creditor, etc."

4) At the time of May 20, 2010, the Plaintiff sent Nonparty 5’s name, the representative director of Nonparty 5, to Nonparty 3 by content-certified mail an answer to the following details. Nonparty 3 did not respond thereto.

○ The reason why the Plaintiff created the right to collateral on each real estate listed in the separate sheet is that the Plaintiff created the right to collateral on advance payment claims to Nonparty 1, Nonparty 2, and Defendant 2, and that the right to collateral was cancelled on April 7, 2009, when the Plaintiff was in office as the representative director without any special reason.

With respect to the registration of cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage of this case, the Plaintiff’s shareholders and creditors asked the Plaintiff of the background of cancellation. Accordingly, at the time of cancellation of the right to collateral security, the Plaintiff confirmed whether the right to collateral security was lawfully cancelled in accordance with the resolution of the board of directors, but did not discover any supporting document.

Therefore, I would like to grasp the truth as to whether the mortgage was voluntarily cancelled with the thickness of the representative director at the time. I would like to find out the truth, I would like to answer the gender.

5) Meanwhile, upon the Plaintiff’s request for witness, Nonparty 3 was adopted as a witness at the first instance and the first instance court, and received a writ of witness from the court several times. At each time, Nonparty 3 submitted a statement of reasons for non-appearance at the first instance court and the first instance court 3 times more than three times on the ground of overseas business trip, and refused to return the witness. During the instant lawsuit, Nonparty 8’s agent Nonparty 8 requested Nonparty 3 to attend the court as a witness and make a statement, but Nonparty 3 stated all relevant facts during the prosecution investigation process as follows, and was unable to attend the court as a witness due to the burden on the above evidence.

『○ 소외 8 : 소외 2 씨 포함, 소외 6 씨 포함 아무한테도 관심 없습니다. 전혀 관심 없습니다. 소외 7이 관심 있는 거는 못 받은 돈 일부라도 받는 거 이외에는 아무 것도 없습니다. 또 하나, 소외 7은 소외 2 씨가 횡령을 했든지 말든지 전혀 관심이 없습니다. 소외 7은 소외 2가 근저당을 위조해 가지고 자기가 불법을 행위한 것, 그것에만 관심이 있습니다. 소외 2조차도 기소되는 걸 별로 관심도 없습니다. 소외 7은. 그렇지 않겠습니까? 소외 2랑 무슨 원, 원수가 졌다고 걔가 기소되는 걸 원하겠습니까? 아무도 원하지 않습니다. 다만 소외 2가 끝까지 거짓말하고 자기, 그러니까 횡령은 관심도 없고요. 위조, 근저당 위조한 거에 대해서 본인이 적절하게 대처만 한다면 누구라도 처벌불원서를 쓸 수가 있습니다, 소외 2를 포함해가지고. 그렇지 않겠습니까? 아닌가요, □ 사장님?

○ Nonparty 3: Examples. Now, I have made a multilateral statement on this part. It is necessary to do so once it is confirmed.

○ Nonparty 8: I know, therefore, that the civil witness is scheduled to be present on the 12th day of the 12th day of the day, which is the day of the 12th day of the day, and I know that I would like to go through Nauritius. In addition, I would like to go through the compulsory appearance by the judge, who is going to so doing, to go through the compulsory appearance,? Is I do not come to go on the 12th day of the 12th day? I need to request the cooperation.

○ Nonparty 3: In not example, even before he was found to be a witness, he was accused of perjury, and therefore he will be able to be difficult with the witness.

C. Determination on the cause of the claim

1) The following circumstances acknowledged by the above facts and evidence revealed: ① Nonparty 2, etc. appears to have practically controlled the Plaintiff by taking advantage of the Plaintiff’s status as the major shareholder at the time of the cancellation of the registration; ② the time when the above investment prospectus was already submitted was indicated after the cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the mortgage, but the said investment prospectus still remains valid as the security of the claim against Nonparty 2, etc.; ③ the above investment prospectus appears to have failed to recognize that the registration of the establishment of the mortgage was cancelled by Nonparty 3, the representative director of the company at the time of the above establishment of the mortgage; ③ The above investment prospectus contains various issues, such as “the purchase of money and the provision of security,” which were made before the Plaintiff’s board of directors’ submission of the above investment prospectus, without any mentioning any specific reasons as to the registration of the establishment of the mortgage at issue, and ④ the Plaintiff’s voluntary presentation of the registration of the establishment of the mortgage at issue by Nonparty 2, etc. at the time of the Plaintiff’s submission of the above investment prospectus.

2) Where any registration of cancellation is entirely or partially cancelled, the registration is made with the intention of holding the same effect as that of the cancellation from the beginning when the cancellation was cancelled, and Article 75 of the Registration of Real Estate Act provides that where an application for the restoration of cancelled registration is filed by a third party with an interest in the registration, a written consent or a certified copy of the judgment against the third party with an interest in the registration must be attached to the application. In this context, where a third party with an interest in the registration is in the registration, and where the cause of cancellation registration is null and void because the former registration of cancellation was cancelled without the intention of the mortgagee, the third party with an interest in the registration is obligated to take the steps necessary for the restoration registration procedure of the mortgagee without asking his good faith and bad faith (see Supreme Court Decision 95Da39526, Sept. 30, 1997, etc.).

In this case, the defendant Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government is the owner of each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2; the defendant 4 is the owner of each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 and 2; the defendant 1/2 of the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 and 2; the defendant 1/2 of the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 3 of the separate sheet No. 3; the successor 1/2 of the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 and 2, and the registration of seizure, the registration of the decision of compulsory commencement of auction, the registration of the establishment of neighboring mortgage creation, and the registration of the decision of voluntary commencement of auction; therefore, the plaintiff, Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the defendant 4, the defendant 4, the construction of forest, and the successor 1/2 of the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 3 of the separate sheet are the third parties with interest in the registration of cancellation of the registration of this case; therefore, the plaintiff has the obligation to consent to the cancellation registration of this case.

D. Determination as to the assertion of Defendant Rate Construction

1) Defendant Dog Construction asserts that, in light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s Intervenor was aware of the registration of cancellation of this case and the fact that the Plaintiff’s Intervenor received the right of collateral security from the Plaintiff on the premise that the registration of cancellation of this case would be registered, it is extremely exceptional, and that in this case, the Plaintiff did not perform all procedural actions, such as filing an appeal, while only the Plaintiff’s Intervenor was actively conducting procedural actions, the instant right of collateral security transfer agreement is highly likely to have been conducted formally for the trust of this

The purpose of this case is to prevent an intervenor from filing an application for intervention for the purpose of acting as an agent without inducing participation. On the other hand, an interest in this case refers to a legal interest, not a de facto, economic or emotional interest in the outcome of the lawsuit. This means that the plaintiff is naturally entitled to res judicata effect or executory power in the lawsuit, or it is difficult to determine legal status of the plaintiff who seeks to participate in the lawsuit on the premise of the judgment, at least 105Da19156, even if it is difficult to recognize that the plaintiff's transfer of this case's collateral security right was based on the premise that the transfer of this case's collateral security right to the plaintiff's collateral security right was not effective (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da19156, Apr. 26, 2007). The above evidence and the purport of pleading No. 2300, Sept. 2, 2009, the plaintiff's transfer of this case's collateral security right to the plaintiff's transfer of this case's collateral security right.

2) Defendant Dog Construction asserts that the instant mortgage is designed to secure the right to lease deposit, and that the Plaintiff already returned the said lease deposit, so the instant cancellation registration is ultimately consistent with the substantive relationship due to the extinguishment of the secured claim.

The plaintiff transferred KRW 2 billion to the new bank account of the defendant 2 on March 23, 2007, and the tenant was composed of the plaintiff, the landlord, the non-party 2, the non-party 1, and the defendant 2 as of March 23, 2007, with the plaintiff, the landlord as the non-party 2, the non-party 1, and the non-party 2, and the non-party 2 as to the underground floor and the non-party 2 and the non-party 2 as of October 1, 2007 with the deposit amount of KRW 2 billion for the underground floor and the non-party 2 and the non-party 2 in the non-party 2, the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 2, the non-party 2, and the non-party 2. Therefore, there is no evidence to find otherwise. Therefore, the defendant 1's assertion in this part is without merit).

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the plaintiff's claim for recovery registration of 1/2 shares among the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 3 against the defendant 1 and the lawsuit against the defendant Newan Mutual Savings Bank is unlawful. The defendant 1 and the defendant 2 are obligated to perform each procedure for recovery registration stated in the order to the plaintiff. Since the defendant Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the defendant 4, the defendant 4, the forest construction, and the successor are obligated to express his/her consent to each registration of recovery stated in the order to the plaintiff, the part of the plaintiff's claim for recovery registration of 1/2 shares among the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 3 against the defendant 1 and the lawsuit against the defendant Newan Mutual Savings Bank shall be dismissed. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant 1, Gangnam-gu, Seoul Metropolitan Government, the defendant 4, the forest construction, and the successor's claim against the defendant 2 for the remaining claims shall be accepted within the scope of each above recognition, and the plaintiff's claim against the defendant 2 is without merit, each of the plaintiff's claim against the defendant 1 and the judgment shall be dismissed.

[Attachment Omission of List of Real Estate]

Judges Kim Sang-sung (Presiding Justice)

Note 1) The Plaintiff changed its trade name in sequence to “Turururur Cop Cop Pop Pop Pops Co., Ltd.”, “Pops Pops Media of Co., Ltd.”, “stock company’s workshops”, “satops Satpf,” and “Satpf,” respectively.

2) Unless the Defendant Newan Mutual Savings Bank does not withdraw from a lawsuit, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant Newan Mutual Savings Bank and the claim against the succeeding Intervenor’s claim against the Defendant Newan Mutual Savings Bank are ordinarily co-litigation and continue to exist in effect. As such, this court should make a judgment on all of the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant Newan Mutual Savings Bank and the claims against the succeeding Intervenor (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da16729, Jul. 9,

3) In particular, on March 14, 2012, Nonparty 3 submitted a statement of reasons for non-appearance on the ground of an overseas business trip (the departure on March 14, 2012, and return on March 31, 2012) to this court on March 14, 2012, and did not appear as a witness on the first date for pleading (the date for pleading March 27, 2012). Upon the imposition of a fine for negligence by this court on April 13, 2012, Nonparty 3 asserted that he was unable to appear as a witness on the said date for pleading.

4) The investment prospectus for offering new shares with capital increase is liable for civil and criminal liability in a case where the false content is included in the documents disclosed through the Financial Supervisory Service. It is difficult to view that Nonparty 3, who is only a professional manager, participated in the cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the instant neighboring mortgage, made a false public announcement while taking the above responsibility.

5) If the registration of the establishment of a mortgage of this case was voluntarily cancelled pursuant to the intention of Nonparty 3, Nonparty 3 as a witness to the court and there is no reason to refuse to present such fact.

6) Meanwhile, since a promissory note claim (Evidence A No. 1) alleged by the Plaintiff as a secured claim of the instant collateral is deemed to have been exercised upon the filing of a lawsuit on the claim for cancellation of the registration of the instant collateral security, etc., it is reasonable to deem that the instant lawsuit constitutes a judicial claim with the effect of interrupting the extinctive prescription of the instant promissory note claim (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da7213, Feb. 13, 2004). Since the fact that the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on June 10, 2010 is apparent in the record, the running of the extinctive prescription of the instant promissory note claim is interrupted.

7) The provisions of Article 415 of the Civil Procedure Act that the judgment of the first instance court may be changed within the scope of objection, is not applicable to matters to be investigated ex officio, regardless of the party's request. Thus, in this case, even if the court of first instance dismissed the plaintiff's request for registration of recovery of 1/2 shares among the real estate listed in the attached Table 3 against the defendant 1, and the plaintiff's claim against the defendant Newan Mutual Savings Bank, the court of first instance dismissed each of the claims against the defendant 1 and the defendant Newan Mutual Savings Bank, and it does not violate the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration even if it alters each of the claims to dismiss them by its own authority (see Supreme Court Decision 95Da14817, Jul. 25, 1995).