beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The plaintiff's conjunctive claim added at the trial is dismissed.
3. Appeal.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in the reasoning of the judgment is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in this case is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, for the preliminary claims added by the plaintiff in the trial of the court of second
[Supplementary or additional parts] On the fourth 3rd 3rd m of the first instance court's decision, "A No. 8" is deemed as "Nos. 8, 11, and 13," and the same 8th m through 9th mar "facts" are deemed as "the fact that the registration of ownership preservation has been completed in the name of the defendant with respect to B, September 29, 2006, as to the operation of each of the above land on May 17, 2006," and the registration of ownership preservation has been completed in the name of the defendant."
In the fifth fifth fifth fifth of the judgment of the court of first instance, “The entry of Eul No. 3” is deemed as “each entry in Eul No. 3, 7, and 12,” and the same eightth of the same day is added to “the debtor company entered into a mortgage contract with the defendant on August 30, 2007 with respect to each real estate, etc. as “the debtor company entered into a mortgage contract with the defendant on August 30, 2007, with respect to the secured obligation, including the borrowed money, a separate or several obligation, a certificate of payment, etc., signed and sealed by the defendant, and all obligations arising from issue, endorsement, guarantee, and acceptance of all bills and checks or commercial transactions,” with the maximum debt amount of KRW 120 million as stated in the separate list 3 and 4.
On the 5th 14th 14th decided in the first instance trial, the Bank shall add “the defendant to the debtor” in front of “The Bank.”
2. Judgment on the plaintiff's conjunctive claim
A. If the sales contract for each real estate stated in the separate sheet Nos. 1 and 2 in the summary of the cause of the claim is genuine, the Defendant did not pay the obligor company the purchase price of KRW 280,000,000,000,000 to the Defendant, on behalf of the insolvent debtor company, KRW 248,000,000,000,000,000.