beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.12.08 2016가단5021233

근저당권말소

Text

1. The defendant shall accept on May 31, 2001, the registration office of the Seoul Central District Court with respect to the real estate stated in the attached list to B.

Reasons

1. Basic facts - On June 2, 2000, Cho Ho Bank Co., Ltd. loans 1 billion won at the interest rate of 19% per annum to C Co., Ltd. on the joint and several guarantee basis of B.

- C Company neglected to pay the principal and interest and lost the benefit of time, and the above claim of the Choung Bank was transferred to C&B Investment Loan Co., Ltd through a limited liability company specializing in C&B’s asset-backed securitization, and was notified of the assignment of claim in accordance with the Asset-Backed Securitization Act.

- C&B Investment Loan Co., Ltd. filed a payment order with the Seoul Central District Court No. 2014Da66897, Dec. 26, 2014, 2014 to seek the payment of the acquisition amount against C&B Co., Ltd. and B, “The debtors jointly and severally liable to the creditors, with a share of 19% per annum from December 14, 2014 to the date of full payment,” and this payment order became final and conclusive on January 17, 2015.

- The C&B Investment Loan Co., Ltd. transferred its claim against B to the Plaintiff on February 17, 2015, and on May 22, 2015, notified the transfer of claim to B.

- On May 31, 2001, the Defendant completed the registration of creation of a mortgage (hereinafter “registration of creation of a mortgage”) against the Defendant, the maximum debt amount of KRW 120,000,000,000, and the debtor B (hereinafter “registration of creation of a mortgage”).

- As of the closing date of the argument in this case, B is in the insolvent of debt excess.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry in Gap evidence 1 through 7 (including virtual numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion [Plaintiff] The establishment of a mortgage of this case was not established or completed by means of false conspiracy with others, and even if not, the Defendant was subrogated to B in order to preserve the claim for the amount of money which was acquired against B by subrogation.