손해배상금 등
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff’s offer of security 1) around April 2008 to the Defendant, the Plaintiff’s debt KRW 1 billion against the Defendant (hereinafter “instant debt”) to the Defendant around April 2008.
(2) On December 14, 2012, the land category was changed to a site on December 14, 2012 with a security of the Plaintiff’s ownership: D 330 square meters. Of 9,719 square meters of forest and E, 4/6/6 co-ownership of each of the said real estate (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”).
(2) On April 2, 2008, regarding each of the instant real property, the object of the registration of creation of a mortgage on April 2, 2008, including the maximum debt amount of KRW 1 billion, the debtor C, and the mortgagee, as the defendant, included one-six shares in the name of I out of 9,719 square meters of land E, E, E, forest, and land in addition to each of the instant real property.
(hereinafter “the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage of this case”) was completed.
B. On September 1, 2009, the order to commence voluntary auction was issued on September 1, 2009 with respect to the auction of each real estate of this case and the Defendant’s dividends 1) D large 330 square meters and E forest land 9,719 square meters (including the Plaintiff’s share in co-ownership), and the decision to commence compulsory auction was issued on September 4, 2009 with respect to the above auction procedure (hereinafter “instant auction procedure”).
As a result of the progress, the ownership of each of the above real estate was transferred to H on October 7, 2010. 2) The Defendant received dividends in the fourth order of KRW 470,971,796, out of the sales price of KRW 952,621,302 (=the sales price of KRW 958,335,900 and KRW 991,732) to be actually distributed at the instant auction procedure on November 19, 2010.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The Plaintiff’s assertion did not have leased KRW 1 billion to C, and thus, the instant obligation did not existed from the beginning, or was extinguished due to repayment or extinguishment agreement prior to the date of distribution of the instant auction procedure, or C’s payment in kind to the Plaintiff, and Nos. 101 and 301 of the Bupyeong-gu Incheon, Bupyeong-gu, Incheon.