Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) (Law Firm Jeong, Attorneys Kim Young-sung et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant Counterclaim (Attorney Seo-won et al., Counsel for the defendant-Counterclaim)

September 3, 2014

1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) shall pay to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) 266,803,484 won and 186,846,920 won among them, 5% per annum from July 11, 2013; 79,956,564 won per annum from December 7, 2013 to October 17, 2014; and 20% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment.

2. All of the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)’s remaining principal claim and Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff)’s counterclaim are dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the remainder, respectively, by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The principal lawsuit: Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Defendant”) shall pay 34,456,564 won to Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and 264,50,000 won from July 5, 2008 to the service date of a duplicate of the complaint of this case; 5% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment; 79,956,564 won at the rate of 20% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment; 5% per annum from February 16, 2009 to the day of delivery of the application for modification of the purport of this case and the cause of this case; and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

Counterclaim: The plaintiff shall pay to the defendant 321,043,436 won with 5% interest per annum from September 19, 2007 to the service date of a duplicate of the counterclaim of this case, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

A. Status of parties

원고는 2006. 8. 29. ▷▷대부라는 상호로 서울시에 대부업 등록을 마친 자이고(2008. 1. 8. 폐지신고를 하였다), 피고는 2006. 10. 31. ♤♤캐피탈이라는 상호로 의정부시에 대부업 등록을 마친 자이다.

(b) Loans made on April 26, 2007;

1) The Plaintiff asked Nonparty 1 to lend KRW 300,000,000 from the Defendant, and received KRW 70,000 from the Defendant on April 26, 2007, and entered into a loan transaction agreement with Nonparty 1 on the amount of KRW 300,000,000 per annum, interest rate of KRW 300,00,00 per annum, June 26, 2007, and interest rate of arrears rate of KRW 48% per annum. The Plaintiff deducted the interest of KRW 10,00 pursuant to the above loan agreement and then remitted KRW 20,00,000 to the account designated by Nonparty 1 on April 26, 207, and paid KRW 70,00,000 to Nonparty 1 in cash (hereinafter “the instant loan”).

2) On April 27, 2007, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a mortgage agreement with the mortgagee, the Defendant, the maximum debt amount of KRW 300,000,00 with respect to the real estate of 44.53 square meters on the second floor and 44.53 square meters in 2nd floor (hereinafter “instant real estate”), among the non-party 6 names (the ownership of the non-party 1 or the title trust was held in the name of the non-party 6), 195 square meters in Dobong-gu Seoul (the address 5 omitted), Dobong-gu (the non-party 65/56 shares in the name of the non-party 6, and the above ground 5 square meters in 195 square meters in 195 square meters in 207.

3) However, on June 25, 2008, the registration for transfer of ownership (No. 63082) was made on the instant real estate in the name of Nonparty 6 under the name of Nonparty 1. On July 4, 2008, the registration for transfer of ownership (No. 67513 of the receipt of the above registration office) was cancelled on the grounds of termination, and the registration for transfer of ownership (No. 67513 of the receipt of the above registration office) was completed on July 4, 2008 under the name of the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

(c) Loans made on October 9, 2007;

1) The Plaintiff asked Nonparty 1 to lend KRW 400,000,000 from the Defendant on October 9, 2007, and around 170,000,000 from the Defendant, Nonparty 15 to Nonparty 13, the Plaintiff was provided with KRW 130,00,000 from Nonparty 13, the Plaintiff’s birth, and lent it to Nonparty 1 (hereinafter “instant second loan”).

2) 소외 1은 소외 16 소유의 경기 (주소 6 생략) 답 1,077㎡(이하 ‘이 사건 ♡♡리 토지’라 한다)에 설정되어 있던 근저당권자 소외 17, 채권최고액 520,000,000원의 근저당권을 위 400,000,000원의 차용금 채무에 대한 담보로 이전해 주기로 하고, 2007. 10. 11. 피고와 소외 15 명의로 위 근저당권설정등기에 대한 이전등기(수원지방법원 양평등기소 접수 제38864호, 이하 ‘이 사건 ♡♡리 근저당권’이라 한다)를 경료하여 주었다.

3) 피고와 소외 15는 2008. 1.경 이 사건 ♡♡리 근저당권에 기해 위 토지에 대한 임의경매를 신청하여 2009. 2. 6. 매각허가결정까지 받았다가, 2009. 2. 16. 위 임의경매신청을 취하하였고, 소외 16은 같은 날 위 토지를 480,700,000원에 매도하여 그 매매대금 중 위 토지에 대한 선순위 근저당권자였던 양평농업협동조합에게 변제해야 할 192,526,256원을 공제한 나머지 288,173,744원을 피고와 소외 15의 요구에 따라 그 중 152,000,000원을 피고에게, 그 나머지를 소외 15에게 각 지급하였다.

D. Details of joint lending between the Plaintiff and the Defendant

The details of loans jointly lent by the plaintiff and the defendant to the debtor, including the loans Nos. 1 and 2 of this case (based on the amount of the actual contributions of the plaintiff and the defendant, which are verified as evidence) are as follows (in addition to the following table, there are several contents of joint loans, but it seems that both the plaintiff and the defendant have been recovered and the settlement has been completed)

[Attachment] (hereinafter “instant Table”)

본문내 포함된 표 순번 일자 원고(원) 피고(원) 채무자 담보부동산 담보제공자 1 2006. 12. 29. 200,000,000 200,000,000 소외 1 경기 연천군 (지명 2 생략) 산◇◇(주1) 소외 5 등 2 2007. 4. 26. 이 사건 제1대여금 3 2007. 5. 2. 100,000,000 100,000,000 ㈜PHC코리아 충북 음성군 (주소 7 생략) 및 지상건물(주2) 4 2007. 5. 16. 107,000,000 130,000,000 소외 18 서울 은평구 (주소 8 생략)지층 ●호, 지상 ▲▲▲, ■■■호(주3) 5 2007. 5. 17. 200,000,000 100,000,000 소외 1 남양주 (주소 9 생략)(주4) 소외 19 6 2007. 7. 4. 200,000,000 200,000,000 소외 14 경기 가평군 (주소 10, 11, 12, 13 생략)(주5) 7 2007. 9. 19. - 500,000,000 소외 1 경기 연천군 (지명 2 생략) 산◇◇(주6), 남양주시 (주소 2, 3 생략)(주7), 의정부시 (주소 4 생략) ☆☆☆☆☆☆ 아파트 ▽▽▽-◎◎◎(주8) 소외 5 등 8 2007. 10. 9. 이 사건 제2대여금 9 2007. 10. 31. 20,000,000 20,000,000 소외 20 충남 보령시 (주소 14 생략)(주9)

1) Busan △△△

2) Ground buildings

주3) ■■■호

Note 4) (Explanation 9 omitted)

Note 5) (Name 10, 11, 12, 13 omitted)

Note 6) Busan △△△

Note 7) (Name 2, 3 omitted)

Note 8) xx▽▽- dedicateds

Note 9) ( Address 14 omitted)

[Ground] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, Gap evidence No. 12-1, 2, 3, 10, 11, 23, Gap evidence No. 15, 23, 15, 23, 24, Gap evidence No. 25-1, 2, 3, Gap evidence No. 28, 29, 31, 34, 35, 37, Gap evidence No. 48-1, 2, 3, 4, 54-1, 2, 3, 4, 55-1, 57, Gap evidence No. 59-1, 2, 3, 75-1, 7-1, 7-2, 7-1, 7-7, 7-1, 7-7, 7-2, 7-7, 7-7 evidence No. 1, 7-7, 7-1, 7-7 evidence No.

2. Determination on the main claim

A. Determination as to the claim related to the first loan of this case

1) The following facts are established based on Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Gap evidence Nos. 12-10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 18, 23, Gap evidence Nos. 23, 25-1, 2, 3, 48-1 through 4, 3, 5, 9, 10 of evidence Nos. 48-1, 3, 3, 9, and 10 of witness’s testimony and arguments. In other words, the plaintiff and defendant registered their own credit business, and provided real estate to the plaintiff and the defendant as collateral and provided money lending business to the defendant for each time of lending money, and it seems that the defendant jointly collected money from the plaintiff and the defendant's funds under the name of the plaintiff and the defendant to the effect that each of the above loan was made in the form of a separate loan agreement with the plaintiff and the defendant to the extent that the loan was made in accordance with the agreement with the defendant Nos. 1, 200.

2) According to the facts acknowledged above, the defendant cancelled the right to collateral security of this case with respect to the real estate in △dong in the name of the plaintiff and the defendant, which was provided to secure the claim for the loan 1 in this case, and acquired it by completing the registration of transfer of ownership under the name of the defendant alone. It can be deemed that the defendant recovered the loan 1 in this case. Thus, the defendant is obligated to distribute to the plaintiff the amount equivalent to the amount of the plaintiff's contribution within the scope of the amount collected by the plaintiff.

3) On the other hand, the defendant acquired the real estate of this case 1, 1, 2, 10, 10, 12-18, 23, 13, 14, 15, 19, and 30 of the total amount of 10, 300, 300, 400, 300, 400, 300, 400, 300, 400, 400, 300, 400, 400, 400, 100, 400, 100, 200, 300, 40, 300, 400, 300, 300, 400, 406, 300, 300, 400, 400, 100, 400, 300, 400, 300

4) Of the loans No. 1 of this case, the Plaintiff asserts that the amount invested by himself is KRW 230,00,000, and as of July 4, 2008, the principal and interest of the loans No. 1 of this case as of July 4, 2008 is KRW 345,00,000, the Defendant should pay to the Plaintiff KRW 264,000 ( KRW 345,00,000 x 23/30). However, considering the Plaintiff’s evidence No. 3,6, No. 12-15, and Nonparty 1’s testimony and arguments as to the loans No. 1 of this case, the Plaintiff’s claim for 200,000,000,000 won, which is recognized as 00,0000,000,0000,000,000 won, which is 10,000,0000,00.

B. Determination as to the claim related to the second loan of this case

1) Determination as to the cause of claim

가) 원고(원고는 동생 소외 13으로부터 금원을 차용하였다)와 피고가 소외 15와 함께 소외 1에게 이 사건 제2대여금을 지급한 사실은 앞서 본 바와 같고, 앞서 기초사실에서 거시된 증거들에다가 갑 제38 내지 40호증의 각 기재 및 앞서 살펴 본 원고와 피고의 동업약정의 내용 등을 종합하면, 원고와 피고 및 소외 15는 소외 1에게 합계 400,000,000원을 대여하면서 대여금 채권에 대한 담보로 이 사건 ♡♡리 토지에 소외 15와 피고 명의로 근저당권이전등기를 경료하고, 이 사건 제2대여금을 회수하게 될 경우 회수받은 자가 이를 채권자의 출연비율에 따라 분배하기로 묵시적으로 약정한 것으로 봄이 상당하고(위와 같은 약정에 따라 소외 15는 자신의 출연비율을 초과하여 회수한 부분에 대하여 원고에게 채권보전 조치를 취해주었다), 이 사건 제2대여금을 피고와 소외 15가 회수한 사실은 앞서 본 바와 같으므로, 결국 이 사건 제2대여금 중 일부를 회수한 피고는 위와 같은 약정에 따라 원고에게 출연비율에 따른 금원을 분배해 줄 의무가 있다고 할 것이다.

B) Furthermore, in relation to the amount that the Defendant is liable to pay to the Plaintiff, the Defendant and Nonparty 15 collected KRW 288,173,744 with respect to the second loan of this case, and the Defendant collected KRW 152,00,000 among them, as seen earlier. The amount that the Plaintiff is liable to pay to the Plaintiff according to the investment ratio of KRW 93,656,466 [28,173,744 x 0.325 x 1325 (=130,000/4000/400, 400,000), and the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 72,436,438,737,740,405 - 70640,505 - 406,7050,7405 - 706,400,500) with respect to the amount that the Plaintiff is liable to pay to the Plaintiff.

2) Judgment on the defendant's assertion

피고는, 원고는 이 사건 제2대여금과 관련하여, 자신이 출연한 130,000,000원에 대하여 경기 양평군 (주소 1 생략) 토지 및 그 지상의 근린생활시설 및 주택에 관하여 별도의 근저당권을 설정받음으로써 담보를 취득하였으므로, 피고는 이 사건 ♡♡리 토지의 회수금원에 대하여는 아무런 권리가 없다고 주장한다.

살피건대, 갑 제60호증, 갑 제62호증(가지번호 포함), 을 제14호증의 1, 2 각 기재 및 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 ① 소외 5 소유의 경기 양평군 (주소 1 생략) 대 718㎡ 및 그 지상의 근린생활시설 및 주택(이하 ‘이 사건 ◆◆리 부동산’이라 한다)에 관하여 2007. 10. 2. 채권최고액 350,000,000원, 채무자 소외 1, 근저당권자 원고로 하는 근저당권설정계약이 체결되고, 2007. 10. 4. 위 각 부동산에 관하여 원고 명의의 근저당권설정등기가 경료된 사실은 인정되나, 이는 이 사건 제2대여금이 지급되기 이전에 설정된 것으로써, 이 사건 제2대여금에 대한 담보로 보기 어려운 점, ② 게다가 이 사건 ♡♡리 토지에 채권최고액 520,000,000원(대여금 400,000,000원의 130%)의 근저당권이 설정된 이상 추가로 위 ◆◆리 부동산에 관하여 근저당권을 체결하였다고 보기 어려운 점, ③ 소외 1은 자신의 형사사건 수사과정에서, 이 사건 ♡♡리 토지를 담보로 원고와 피고로부터 400,000,000원을 빌렸고(이 사건 제2대여금), 이 사건 ◆◆리 부동산에 원고 명의의 근저당권설정등기를 경료한 것은 원고에 대한 별개의 40억 원 상당의 채무를 담보하기 위한 것이었다고 진술하였던 점, ④ 이 사건 ♡♡리 토지의 소유자인 소외 16도 이 사건 ♡♡리 토지를 담보로 제공하고 소외 1이 차용한 금원 400,000,000원 중 100,000,000원을 소외 1로부터 받아 본인이 썼다고 진술하였던 점 등에 비추어 보면, 이 사건 ◆◆리 부동산에 관한 원고 명의의 근저당권은 원고와 소외 1 사이의 별개의 채권관계에 기하여 이루어진 것으로 봄이 상당하여, 피고의 위 주장은 받아들이지 아니한다.

C. Sub-committee

1) Therefore, with respect to the Plaintiff KRW 266,803,484 ( KRW 186,846,920 + KRW 79,956,564) and KRW 186,846,920 from July 11, 2013, the day following the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case claimed by the Plaintiff, and KRW 79,956,564 from December 7, 2013, the day following the delivery date of the application for change of the purport of the claim of this case and the cause of the claim of this case claimed by the Plaintiff, the Defendant has a duty to pay the Plaintiff damages for delay at a rate of 5% per annum as prescribed by the Civil Act until October 17, 2014, each of which is the sentencing date, and each of which is 186,846,920.

2) As to the first loan of this case, the Plaintiff claimed for the payment of damages for delay from July 5, 2008, the following day after the Defendant acquired the real estate of this case, and with respect to the second loan of this case from February 16, 2009, with respect to the second loan of this case, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to engage in credit business jointly with the Plaintiff, and to collect and distribute the claim from the obligor, but there is no evidence to prove that there was an agreement on the due date or due date for payment related to distribution (excluding the loans of this case No. 45 and No. 46, all the entries and arguments in the evidence No. 45 and the purport of the whole pleadings do not seem to have been immediately repaid by the Plaintiff to the Defendant on the date of collecting the claim from the obligor). The Plaintiff’s assertion about the damages for delay exceeding the above recognized portion is without merit.

3. Determination on the defense and counterclaim claim as to the main claim

A. Summary of the defendant's assertion

1) 원고는 마치 소외 1에게 800,000,000원을 대여하고 경기 양평군 (지명 1 생략) 산 ★-▼ 외 토지(이하 ‘이 사건 ◁◁리 토지’라 한다)를 담보로 제공받을 것처럼 피고를 기망하여 2007. 9. 19. 피고로부터 500,000,000원 편취한 후 원고 자신은 아무런 금원을 출연하지 않은 채 소외 1에게 230,000,000원만 지급하고, 나머지 270,000,000원은 피고가 취득하였는바, 이는 피고에 대한 불법행위에 해당한다고 할 것이므로, 그에 따른 500,000,000원 상당의 손해배상책임이 있다. 한편, 원고와 피고가 공동으로 대부업을 영위한 것으로 본다면, 원고와 피고 사이에서 원고는 업무집행조합원이라고 할 것인데 원고는 선관주의의무에 위반하여 소외 1에게 위 금원을 대여하고, 담보가치 없는 부동산에 근저당권을 설정함으로써 위 대여금을 전혀 회수할 수 없게 하였으므로, 선관주의의무 위반에 따른 500,000,000원 상당의 손해배상책임이 있다.

2) On May 16, 2007, the Defendant contributed 130,000,000 won to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff contributed 120,000,000 won to Nonparty 18 and lent it to Nonparty 18 (hereinafter “instant loan”). The Plaintiff only received 80,000,000 won out of the above amount, and did not receive the remainder of 50,000,000 won, so the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the above amount and interest for delay to the Defendant.

3) On September 19, 2007, the Plaintiff and the Defendant set up a right to collateral on September 21, 2007, with respect to the amount loaned to Nonparty 1 (the No. 7 in the instant table; hereinafter “instant No. 4”), with respect to the Do○○○○○○○○ Group, the Plaintiff and the Defendant set up a right to collateral on September 21, 2007, in which the Plaintiff and the Defendant jointly set up a joint mortgagee, and the maximum debt amount of KRW 200,000,000, with the cancellation of the said right to collateral on October 1, 2007, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 87,50,000,000, which is the amount according to the Defendant’s contribution ratio, and the amount equivalent to the interest accrued thereon.

4) The defendant set off claims against the plaintiff with automatic bonds of the above 1, 2, and 3, and set off claims against the defendant against the plaintiff, and the above 1,50,00,000 won (50,000,000 won + 50,000,000 won + 228,956,564 won (130,000,000 won for settlement of accounts related to the first loan of this case + 19,000,000 won for settlement related to the second loan of this case + 19,00,000 won for settlement related to the second loan of this case + 79,956,564 won for settlement related to the second loan of this case) and damages for delay from September 19, 207.

B. Determination on the right to claim damages

1) Determination as to claim for damages against tort

The facts that the Plaintiff acquired KRW 230,00,000 from among the 500,00,000,000 received from the Defendant regarding the loans of this case do not conflict between the parties, and according to the evidence Nos. 17 (including each number), it is recognized that Nonparty 23, who was present as a witness of the criminal case (Seoul Central District Court 201No273) against the Plaintiff, did not visit the office of Nonparty 24 on September 20, 2007, and did not explain the contents of the right analysis table to the Defendant, and the fact that the Plaintiff testified that it was against his memory despite being aware of the fact that the Plaintiff prepared the right to collateral security and the establishment document with the Defendant’s seal, and that the facts charged with the summary indictment is recognized.

그러나, 갑 제24호증, 갑 제25호증의 1 내지 3, 갑 제52호증, 갑 제68 내지 제78호증(각 가지번호 포함)의 각 기재, 증인 소외 1의 증언 및 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정 즉, ① 원고는 2007. 9. 20. 소외 1과 사이에 800,000,000원을 대여하기로 하는 대부약정서를 작성함으로써 소외 1에 대하여 800,000,000원의 채권을 확보한 점, ② 소외 1도 원고로부터(소외 1도 그 중 일부가 피고의 금원이라는 점을 알고 있었다) 800,000,000원을 차용하였고, 이를 변제할 의무가 있다는 점에 대해서는 인정하고 있는 점, ③ 원고가 취득한 230,000,000원은 원고의 소외 1에 대한 별개의 채권에 대한 이자 등의 변제조로 받은 것으로 보이고, 원고가 피고로부터 받은 금원 중 위 230,000,000원을 위와 같은 이유로 취득하였다는 사정만으로, 원고가 소외 1과 공모하여 피고를 속이고 500,000,000원을 편취하였다고 볼 수 없는 점, ④ 위 500,000,000원과 관련하여 원고는 사기죄로 기소되었는데( 서울중앙지방법원 2011노273 ), 위 법원은, 원고가 피고에게 경기 양평군 (지명 1 생략) 산 ★-▼ 토지(이하 ‘이 사건 ◁◁리 토지’라 한다)를 담보로 제공할 것처럼 피고를 기망하였다고 볼 수 없고, 이 사건 ◁◁리 토지에서 이 사건 ○○리 토지 등으로 담보가 변경된 것과 관련하여 원고가 이를 예상하지 못하였고, 피고로부터 동의를 얻은 것으로 보이므로, 피고를 기망하였다고 볼 수 없다고 보아 주위적 공소사실에 관하여 무죄로 판단하고, 원고와 피고는 공동으로 대부업을 운영하는 공동채권자의 지위에 있을 뿐, 원고가 피고로부터 500,000,000원을 차용하였다고 볼 수 없다고 보아, 원고가 피고를 기망하여 500,000,000원 상당의 재산상이익을 취득하였다는 내용의 예비적 공소사실도 무죄로 판단하였으며, 위 판결이 2012. 6. 1 확정된 점, ⑤ 소외 1에 대한 형사재판( 의정부지방법원 2008고합251 등)에서도 소외 1이 원고를 기망하여 2007. 9. 20. 500,000,000원을 편취하였다는 공소사실에 대하여 유죄로 판단되는 등 원고 역시 소외 1로부터 기망당하여 위 금원을 대여하게 된 것으로 보이는 점 등에 비추어 보면, 앞서 인정된 사실만으로 원고가 피고를 기망하여 금원을 편취하였다는 점을 인정하기에 부족하고, 달리 인정할 증거가 없다. 따라서 피고의 이 부분 주장은 이유 없다.

2) Determination on the right to claim damages against the fiduciary duty

However, as seen in the above claim, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff and the defendant jointly entered into a partnership agreement with the defendant to operate a credit business, and the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant constitutes a partnership under the Civil Act.

However, in a case where a part of a member causes damage in violation of his/her duty of care in the course of performing the business affairs of the cooperative, the person who suffers damage shall be limited to a partnership consisting of its members. Even if the damage was incurred to its members as a result, this is not an individual regardless of the cooperative, but an individual who constitutes the cooperative. Thus, the member cannot seek compensation from his/her own position as an individual beyond the cooperative relationship. However, in a case where the partnership relations are terminated and the only property of the cooperative remains in the form of damages claim against the member who performed the business affairs in breach of his/her duty of care, other members may claim the amount equivalent to the ratio of his/her own investment value out of the damage claim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Da60484, Jun. 8, 199; 2004Da30682, Dec. 8, 2005).

Comprehensively taking account of the circumstances acknowledged in the above 1) as to the instant case, it is difficult to recognize that the Plaintiff violated the duty of due care in handling the Plaintiff’s business, and that the damage was incurred therefrom, considering the fact that the Plaintiff secured the claim of KRW 800,000 from Nonparty 1 with respect to the instant loans 4, and that there was the Defendant’s consent with respect to the change of the security for the instant loans 2, it is difficult to recognize that the Plaintiff violated the duty of due care and that the damage was caused. Even if the damage was inflicted on the household, the subject who suffered the damage is the Dong company comprised of its members. Therefore, the Defendant cannot seek compensation from an individual status. Accordingly, the Defendant’

C. Determination as to the right to claim the agreed amount

1) Determination on the third loan of this case

가) 갑 54호증의 1, 2, 3, 4, 제63호증의 1, 2, 3, 을 제9, 10호증의 각 기재 및 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면, 원고는 2007. 5. 16. 소외 18에게 250,000,000원(원고가 107,000,000원을, 피고가 130,000,000원을 출연하였다, 선이자 공제)을 월 이율 3%, 연체이율 연 48%, 기간만료일 2007. 9. 16.로 정하여 대여한 사실, 위 대여금 채권을 담보하기 위하여 서울 은평구 (주소 8 생략) 제1층 제▲▲▲호, 제지층 제●호, 제2층 제■■■호에 관하여 2007. 5. 17. 채권최고액 300,000,000원, 근저당권자 원고, 피고, 채무자 소외 18로 하는 근저당권설정등기(이하 ‘이 사건 ◀◀동 근저당권’이라 한다)를 경료한 사실, 원고는 2007. 9. 7. 소외 18로부터 141,250,000원을 송금받고 나머지 110,000,000원은 현금으로 지급받아 위 대여금을 회수한 사실, 2007. 9. 7. 이 사건 ◀◀동 근저당권이 해지를 원인으로 말소된 사실이 각 인정된다.

Comprehensively taking account of the above facts acknowledged, since the Plaintiff recovered the principal and interest of the third loan of this case from Nonparty 18 around September 7, 2007, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay to the Defendant the amount of money according to the Defendant’s contribution ratio out of the collected money for the third loan of this case pursuant to the business agreement, barring any special circumstance.

B) On September 7, 2007, the Plaintiff paid KRW 30,00,00 to the Defendant on September 14, 2007, KRW 494,710,00 as well as KRW 20 on September 14, 207, KRW 70, KRW 100, KRW 400, KRW 70, KRW 400, KRW 70, KRW 10, KRW 400, KRW 70, KRW 40, KRW 70, KRW 40, KRW 70, KRW 10, KRW 40, KRW 70, KRW 80, KRW 10, KRW 40, KRW 70, KRW 40, and KRW 80, KRW 10, KRW 40, KRW 70, KRW 70, KRW 40, and KRW 80, KRW 10,00, KRW 40, and KRW 70,00, KRW 10,007.

2) Determination on the instant loans No. 4

The Plaintiff and the Defendant, while paying the instant loans to Nonparty 1 on September 20, 207, concluded a mortgage agreement with the obligor, Nonparty 1, the mortgagee, the Plaintiff, and the Defendant on September 21, 2007, regarding the instant 4-lease 4-dong apartment, which was the Government-si (No. 4 omitted), on September 20, 2007, regarding the Defendant’s Government-si, △△△△△△△△△ apartment, △△△△△△, the amount of KRW 200,00,000, and concluded a mortgage agreement with the Defendant on September 21, 2007 (No. 111386, the receipt of the Government Registry’s registry office by the Government District Court, No. 11386, Oct. 1, 207). However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff collected part of the loans by receiving KRW 140,00,00 from Nonparty 1 in relation to the instant loans (No. 1400,0400.

D. Sub-committee

Ultimately, the defendant's defense against the principal lawsuit and the defendant's counterclaim against the plaintiff are all without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant against the plaintiff is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim against the plaintiff and the counterclaim against the defendant are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Cho Young-young (Presiding Judge) and Kim Jong-nam

1) On December 29, 2006, the maximum debt amount of KRW 450,00,000, the debtor, Nonparty 21, Nonparty 5, the mortgagee of the right to collateral security, the plaintiff of the right to collateral security, and the defendant was registered to establish the mortgage. On May 16, 2007, Nonparty 3 was transferred the above right to collateral security (hereinafter “the instant right to collateral security”).

2) Around May 2, 2007, the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s co-ownership registration on the said real estate was completed, and on May 1, 2008, recovered and deleted the principal and interest on the loan.

3) On May 17, 2007, the maximum debt amount of the above real estate was KRW 300,000,000, the debtor, Nonparty 18, the mortgagee of the right to collateral security, the plaintiff of the right to collateral security, and the defendant were revoked on September 7, 2007.

4) In addition to the Plaintiff and the Defendant, Nonparty 22 contributed KRW 100,000,000 to Nonparty 1, and lent a total of KRW 400,000,000 to Nonparty 1. On May 22, 2007, the establishment registration of a mortgage for the said real estate was completed on the basis of the maximum debt amount of KRW 520,00,000,000, the debtor 1, the person holding the right to collateral security, the plaintiff, the defendant, and Nonparty 22, and on June 15, 2007, the said right to collateral security was revoked.

5) Under a loan transaction agreement, the amount of loan was KRW 424,200,00 (a total of KRW 400,000,000 after deducting interest from both the Plaintiff and the Defendant). With respect to the above real estate provided as security to secure the above claim, the provisional registration on July 5, 2007 was cancelled on September 14, 2007.

(6) On September 20, 2007, the registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage with the obligor, Nonparty 1, the mortgagee of the right to collateral security, and the Defendant was completed with respect to the above 00,000,000 won with the maximum debt amount.

7) On September 20, 2007, the registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage with the obligor, Nonparty 1, the mortgagee of the right to collateral security, and the Defendant was completed with respect to the above 00,000,000 won with the maximum debt amount.

8) On September 21, 2007, the maximum debt amount of the above apartment was KRW 200,000,000, the debtor, the non-party 1, the plaintiff of the right to collateral security, and the defendant with respect to the above apartment was established, and on October 1, 2007, the right to collateral security was cancelled.

9) On October 31, 2007, the maximum debt amount of KRW 60,000,000, the debtor, Nonparty 20, and the plaintiff of the right to collateral security was established. On April 21, 2008, the said right to collateral security was cancelled.

10) As to the instant real estate, the National Bank held the right to collateral security in the first order of the maximum debt amount of KRW 60,000,000,000, and Nonparty 6 acquired the said right to collateral security debt, and on September 11, 2008, the Defendant assumed the said obligation. The actual secured obligation was KRW 50,000,000.

Note 11) Abandon forest less than