beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff owned a 1,930 square meters and D 4,532 square meters (hereinafter “instant real estate”). As to the instant real estate, the mortgagee was the E-association with regard to the instant real estate, and the debtor was the Defendant on June 12, 1992, the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage was revoked on November 11, 1995 by the Jeonan District Court (hereinafter “the registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage”) under the receipt of No. 7825 on June 12, 1992.
B. On March 15, 1996, the Plaintiff sold the instant real estate to the Rural Development Corporation. On March 19, 1996, the Plaintiff completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the instant real estate to the Rural Development Corporation. The F purchased the instant real estate from the Rural Development Corporation on March 27, 1996 at KRW 25 million, and completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the instant real estate on April 8, 1996.
C. In the foregoing process, the Plaintiff issued a withdrawn monetary ticket to F and filed a lawsuit against F claiming embezzlement and consolation money on the ground of embezzlement of KRW 25,000,000 of the purchase price of the instant real estate paid by F to the Plaintiff by the Rural Development Corporation using it. However, the Plaintiff appealed a judgment dismissing the claim at the first instance court (Seoul District Court 2017Na50695), but the said judgment was affirmed upon dismissal of the appeal by the appellate court (Seoul High Court 2017Na14191).
(hereinafter referred to as the “instant litigation”). [Ground for recognition] / [Ground for recognition] : Entry in Gap’s Evidence Nos. 2, 4, 6, 8, and 9 (including the serial number), each of the significant facts in this court, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. The Plaintiff, even though the Defendant repaid the secured debt of the instant establishment registration, did not testify or confirm it in the instant lawsuit, and thus, lost the Plaintiff in the instant lawsuit.