근저당권설정등기절차이행
1. The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s appeal is dismissed.
2. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) filed in this Court against the Plaintiff.
1. The defendant's grounds for appeal as to the claim of the principal lawsuit are not significantly different from the argument in the first instance court, and the fact-finding and decision in the first instance court are justified even if the evidence presented to the court was presented to the court in the first instance.
Therefore, this court's reasoning is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for a partial dismissal or addition as follows. Thus, this court's reasoning is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
An abbreviationd name established in the judgment of the first instance is also used below the same.
[Supplementary or supplementary parts] The "Witness" of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be written with "Witness of the court of first instance".
No. 4 of the first instance judgment, "A separate share acquisition agreement" of the first instance judgment No. 1 and 2, "A separate share acquisition agreement" of the instant share acquisition agreement.
Once the first instance judgment is held, the following shall be added to the fifth instance judgment:
The defendant asserts that the agreement is null and void on March 9, 2016, since "The defendant, as to the details of the preparation of the above agreement (Evidence A No. 19) was made by deceiving Q, the former representative director of the defendant, and there is no evidence to acknowledge it.
In addition, if the agreement between G and the Defendant is valid on March 9, 2016, the Defendant asserts that the effect of the instant mortgage contract was lost due to the establishment of a light agreement between G and the Defendant. Thus, according to the evidence No. 19, the agreement on March 9, 2016 includes that “G is responsible for transferring the right to repayment of the land subrogated registration fee of G and the right to repayment of the amount of the association borrowed.”
However, there is no evidence that the defendant paid the amount equivalent to KRW 850 million to G, even though the defendant paid the amount equivalent to KRW 850 million to G.
Therefore, the legal relationship on the total amount of KRW 256 million paid by G to E in order to withdraw the application for compulsory auction for the instant real estate of this case.