beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On September 10, 2009, a notary public drafted a notarial deed of promissory note No. 66, 2009 (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) in which the issuance of the Plaintiff, the payee Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”), the par value of KRW 1,400,000,000, and the issue date of the Promissory Notes as of September 10, 2009 (hereinafter “instant Promissory Notes”).
B. The Promissory Notes was transferred from D to E on May 31, 2013, and transferred from E on October 25, 2015 to the Defendant.
C. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming the return of deposit amount of KRW 1,903,240,272 against F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”), and lost at the first instance court (Seoul Central District Court 2007Gahap109560), but the appellate court (Seoul High Court 2009Na69496) revoked the first instance judgment on April 23, 2010 and rendered a judgment that “F shall pay to the Plaintiff deposit claims of KRW 1,903,240,272 and its interest or delay damages.”
However, the above judgment was reversed by the appellate court (Supreme Court Decision 2010Da40444).
After remanding, G participated in the lawsuit as the succeeding intervenor in the appellate court (Seoul High Court Decision 201Na36383). The Plaintiff changed the claim to F to the bankruptcy claim confirmation claim amounting to KRW 4,842,032 against the Plaintiff. On May 24, 2013, the appellate court dismissed the Plaintiff’s lawsuit on the ground that the Plaintiff’s creditor lost the Plaintiff’s standing to be a party on the ground that he was issued a collection order for seizure and collection against the deposit claim, and on the other hand, “the Plaintiff deposited KRW 1.9 billion with F on November 1, 2006, but at the request of the representative director of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff deposited the above ordinary deposit claim amounting to KRW 1,903,240,272 on January 18, 2007, and thus, the Plaintiff transferred both the principal and interest of the above ordinary deposit claim to the I company account designated by H. Therefore, the appellate court dismissed G’s claim to return the deposit claim to F.
The above judgment became final and conclusive around July 31, 2013. D.
D April 28, 2010.