The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and the purport of the appeal are in the judgment of the court of first instance.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for a dismissal or an additional determination as follows. Thus, this is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance (hereinafter referred to as “Seoul”) written in 13 pages 3 of the judgment of the court of first instance (hereinafter referred to as “Seoul 2014. 18”) shall be dismissed as “ February 20, 2014.”

3. Additional determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant merely paid KRW 500 million to G and H’s personal account for separate purposes, but did not pay the down payment of the transfer/acquisition contract of this case to D, etc.

The joint business relationship between D and E (hereinafter “E”) at the time of joint transfer of the instant development project right to the Defendant is already terminated, and only D is a creditor under the instant transfer and acquisition contract.

The transfer contract of this case was not terminated before the collection order of this case was delivered to the defendant, and the contract of this case was likely to have been forged or prepared retroactively by G after the completion of the collection order of this case No. 1 of this case was delivered to the defendant. Thus, the defendant cannot set up against the plaintiff of the collection right on the ground that the transfer contract of this case was terminated.

2) Since D and E jointly transferred the instant development project right to the Defendant’s assertion to the Defendant was in a partnership relationship, and accordingly, claims arising from the instant transfer transfer contract are jointly owned by the association, the order of seizure collection based on the Plaintiff’s claims against D and D is null and void.

Even if the collection order of the instant case No. 1 is valid, since D et al. and the Defendant have already agreed on the transfer contract of the instant case, there is no collection claim.

B. 1) In full view of the overall purport of entry and alteration of the evidence No. 1, No. 500 million won of down payment, the Defendant issued this case to D, etc. from July 5, 2013 to October 23, 2013.