손해배상(기)
1. The provisional attachment of 3,000,000 won among the plaintiff's lawsuit and its claim against the Incheon District Court 2014Kadan3213.
1. The facts of the premise of the dispute are as follows: (a) on August 13, 2009, the Defendant entered into a mortgage agreement with D and the following eight parcels of land (hereinafter the following Table 1 to 3) with respect to the real estate “real estate 1, 4 to 4, and 8”; and (b) the “real estate , including all the above real estate,” with the maximum debt amount of 80,000,000 won; and (c) completed the establishment of a mortgage agreement with D based on the above contract on August 14, 2009.
(hereinafter referred to as the “mortgage” is the “mortgage” of this case. E concludes a sales contract with D to purchase the land on November 20, 209, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on December 16, 2009.
(1) The Plaintiff, on November 27, 2009, transferred the ownership of the building of Jinan-gun, Gangwon-gun, Gangwon-do, and the Plaintiff additionally paid KRW 60,00,00 to E on November 27, 200, the Plaintiff entered into an exchange contract (hereinafter “instant exchange contract”) with the content that the Plaintiff would transfer the ownership of the building of Jin-gun, Jin-gun, Gangwon-gun, Gangwon-gun, Gangwon-do, and KRW 18,412 square meters for Hin-gun, Gangwon-do. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 2423, Feb. 1, 2009; Presidential Decree No. 24268, Nov. 27, 2009>
Article 1 Real Estate was sold to P and Q around September 2012 in the Chuncheon District Court’s Young-ro Auction case (hereinafter “1 Auction case”) and around February 21, 2012, and on February 21, 2014, the 2nd real estate was sold to S in the same court R& auction case of real estate (hereinafter “2 auction case”) or the 2nd auction case of real estate.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1-8 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the part concerning the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment in the lawsuit of this case is legitimate
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is KRW 57,500,000 in total among D’s obligations secured by the instant mortgage security right = ① March 2, 2010, KRW 2,500,000.