근저당권말소
1. Revocation of the judgment of the first instance, and the lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed;
2. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. (1) On February 11, 2015, Nonparty A Co., Ltd., a representative director of Nonparty D Co., Ltd.
E. E is a de facto shareholder of D.
(3) As indicated in the separate sheet, the factory building (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant factory real estate”) is being newly constructed on the land and on the ground.
B) Under the following conditions, 1.00 million won was purchased at KRW 1.28 million. The purchase price of o land was KRW 720 million: KRW 720 million (2.50 million for land indicated in the attached list among them), and o building KRW 300 million (excluding value-added tax), o succeeds to the existing surplus agricultural and fishery loans worth KRW 530 million with the real estate of this case as security in lieu of the payment of intermediate payment. The remainder of KRW 498 million was loaned by a bank and paid KRW 498 million to A until March 10, 2015, oD transferred the real estate of this case for the factory of this case (However, the transfer registration of ownership is paid simultaneously with the payment of the remainder) from the maximum amount of debt regarding the real estate of the factory of this case, KRW 6.325 million,000,000,000 from the forest and forest land owned by 3.3 billion,000 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “No mortgagee”).
(3) On February 23, 2015, the Defendant purchased KRW 20 million. (3) On February 23, 2015, the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter “registration of collateral security”) with respect to the instant factory real estate and the instant forest land as D and with the maximum debt amount of KRW 632,500,000,000,000.
(4) On February 24, 2015, A and D have re-established a contract in which the sum of the purchase price of the instant plant real estate and the instant forest land is KRW 1.578 billion (the Plaintiff asserts that it is an “business-up contract” written by falsity in order to increase bank loans (the Plaintiff asserts that it is an “business-up contract”).
The above contract contains a special clause that “A shall take over KRW 630,500,000,000 for over-the-counter loans and Defendant’s collateral security.”
A after February 26, 2015, with respect to the real estate of the factory of this case and the forest of this case, February 24, 2015.