[Defendant-Appellant] Housing Redevelopment Association (Law Firm Dong, Attorneys Cho Chang-joon et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Defendant (Attorney Sung-il, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

August 24, 2007

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2006Gahap22369 Delivered on June 28, 2006

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim

The contract to establish a mortgage concluded on February 2, 2006 between the defendant and the non-party 1 as to the real estate stated in the attached list shall be revoked. The defendant will implement the procedure to register the cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage completed on February 2, 2006 by the Dongjak-gu Seoul Central District Court Registry of February 2, 2006.

Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this Court concerning this case is as follows, except for the following determination as to the defendant's defense dispute added in the trial, and therefore, it is acceptable to see this as it is, as it is, the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance.

2. Parts to be determined additionally

A. The defendant's defense dispute

The defendant is merely about KRW 170,00,000 (or KRW 250,00,000) for the actual amount of the plaintiff's claim against the non-party 1, who is the preserved claim of this case. The amount of the non-party 1's claim which the non-party 1 delegated the non-party 2 to prepare is also KRW 170,00,000 (or KRW 250,000,00) which is the actual amount of the above actual claim, and the non-party 2 prepares a promissorysory note with the amount of the above amount exceeding 440,00,000 won at will (hereinafter "the Promissory Notes, etc. of this case"). The Promissory Notes, etc. of this case are null and void. Meanwhile, as to the real estate listed in the attached list (hereinafter "real estate of this case"), since it is equivalent to the claim amount for the plaintiff as the creditor prior to the establishment registration of the mortgage of this case, the plaintiff's claim is already null and void since it had already been registered in his name.

B. Determination

First of all, according to the statement of evidence No. 6, whether the Promissory Notes, etc. of this case was prepared based on the act of unauthorized Representation of Non-party 2, it is insufficient to recognize that Non-party 1 set the limit of the amount at the time of granting the above right of representation as alleged by the defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently (the testimony of Non-party 2, Non-party 2, Non-party 2, Non-party 2, Non-party 2, since they do not specify any limitation on the amount of the right of representation for the preparation of the Promissory Notes, etc. of this case. Thus, according to the evidence No. 13-4, 5, 6, 9, 10, No. 5, No. 5, No. 6-1, and No. 2, Non-party 2, Non-party 1, as alleged by the defendant, the testimony of Non-party 2, Non-party 1, as alleged by the defendant.

Furthermore, comprehensively taking account of the Plaintiff’s actual amount of the claim against Nonparty 1, the Plaintiff’s 40,00,00 won stated in the evidence Nos. 6, 7, 8, 9-2, 3, and 2-2, respectively, as to the actual amount of the claim, 40,000 won stated in the Promissory Notes No. 1,97,974,702, including the unpaid sale price of the instant real property, taxes, management expenses, etc., damages for moving expenses, 50,000 won, and 70,000,000,000 won, which are the joint and several surety for the repayment obligation to Nonparty 1, as well as the unpaid amount of 324,451,702 won, and the interest amount of 10,000,0000 won until the time of the preparation of the said Promissory Notes No. 2,5050,000 won and the unpaid amount of the claim against Nonparty 1,5050505,0505,0505,05,05,005,005.

Therefore, the defendant's above defense dispute does not appear to have any effect on the establishment of the fraudulent act of this case, even if the promissory note, etc. of this case was prepared in the state of the non-party 1's poor condition as the defendant's other assertion, so long as the actual amount of claims against the non-party 1 is the same as the plaintiff's other assertion.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment List of Real Estate]

Judges Park Jae-chul (Presiding Judge)