근저당권설정등기말소
1. In accordance with the amendment of the purport of the claim in the trial, the part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against C seeking the return of unjust enrichment with the purport that “C shall pay to the Plaintiff 289,058,600 won and 180,000,000 won among them, 5% per annum from August 2, 2011 to May 2, 2013, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of complete payment, and 109,058,600 won, which shall be paid with 5% per annum from August 2, 2011 to February 17, 2012, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.” The judgment became final and conclusive as it is.
[The Jeonju District Court 201Gahap438 case, the appellate court 2012Na1042 case, the appellate court 2012Na1042 case, the Supreme Court 2013Da38480 case]
C On February 1, 2010, the Defendant entered into a sales contract on the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) with the Defendant, and the same month.
4. The registration of transfer of ownership was completed to the Defendant under the Jeonju District Court Kim Jeju District Court receipt No. 2892.
C. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for revocation of a fraudulent act seeking revocation and restitution of the instant real estate sales contract between C and the Defendant. On June 19, 2013, the Jeonju District Court Decision 201Gahap4345, supra, dismissed the lawsuit on the ground that, after the lapse of one year from the date on which the Plaintiff became aware of the cause for revocation, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit for revocation of a fraudulent act and filed a lawsuit for revocation of the fraudulent act was unlawful as the lapse
In the foregoing judgment, the Plaintiff filed an appeal against the Plaintiff, and the appellate court of Gwangju High Court (Seoul High Court), 2013Na1544, which was the appellate court, concluded on December 19, 2013, and on January 16, 2014, the sales contract concluded on February 1, 2010 between C and the Defendant was revoked, and the Defendant was sentenced to C to the judgment on February 4, 2010, that the procedures for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration, which was completed as of February 4, 2010 by receipt No. 2892, and that the said judgment was as of February 4, 2014.