근저당권말소
1. On December 28, 2016, the Defendant: (a) on each real estate listed in the separate sheet, the Changwon District Court rendered an official approval and registration office for the Plaintiff.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On November 25, 2016, the Plaintiff was awarded a successful bid for each of the instant real estates listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant real estates”) in the Changwon District Court C real estate auction case.
B. The Defendant reported the right of retention (hereinafter “instant right of retention”) on the ground that the Defendant did not receive the wage and construction cost of KRW 400 million on January 20, 2014 in the said auction case, and occupied each of the instant real estate.
C. On December 27, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 400 million to the Defendant with respect to the instant lien.
On December 28, 2016, the Plaintiff completed the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter “registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage of this case”) with respect to each real estate of this case to the Defendant, the maximum debt amount of KRW 350 million, the debtor, and the creditor.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 2, 3, and 6 (including virtual number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff would have received the necessary construction cost from the Defendant, and completed the registration of the establishment of a mortgage of the instant neighboring area from the Defendant, but the Plaintiff merely received KRW 42 million from the Defendant four times from December 30, 2016 to April 25, 2017, and the Plaintiff transferred KRW 52,90,000 to the Defendant five times from August 30, 2017 to January 10, 2018, and thus, the registration of the establishment of a mortgage of the instant neighboring area ought to be cancelled.
B. The plaintiff and the defendant agreed to pay KRW 680 million to the defendant with respect to the right of retention of this case. The defendant received KRW 400 million from the plaintiff, but completed the registration of creation of a mortgage of this case in order to secure the payment of the remaining KRW 280 million, which was not paid, and the defendant did not receive the above KRW 280 million from the defendant, so the plaintiff cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim of this case.
3. Determination.