근저당권설정등기말소
1. The defendant received KRW 264,338,00 from the plaintiff, and thereafter real estate stated in the attached real estate list to the plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. B received pigs from the Defendant from August 2010 to January 2013, 2013, but failed to settle the amount equivalent to KRW 170 million and was urged to pay the price.
B. B, a high school alumni, intended to sell the real estate listed in the separate sheet of real estate owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant real estate”), with the knowledge that the sale was not sexually, and thus, sought to pay his/her debt by using it.
C. B purchased the instant real estate in KRW 1.2 billion between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff on January 2013, and the payment method of the purchase price was to take over the Plaintiff’s existing obligation KRW 330 million, and paid the Defendant the amount of KRW 1.2 billion with the amount of maximum debt amount of KRW 1.2 billion per month after receiving pigss from the Defendant and paying the amount of KRW 870 million in cash each month with the revenues of KRW 200 million, and decided to complete the registration of ownership transfer of the instant real estate, and to have C, which operates 3-4 companies, take a guarantee.
B, however, since October 2012, the management of the real estate of this case has become worse, and around January 2013, the debt of this case has become more than KRW 170 million and the real estate of this case has been provided to the defendant as security.
Even if there is no possibility to lead to an increase in the sales amount, and C was a person who is not practically capable of bearing a guaranteed obligation because of the economic difficult circumstances at the time. On April 1, 2013, the Plaintiff, by deception, concluded a mortgage contract with the maximum debt amount of 1.2 billion won, B, and the Defendant for the instant real estate (hereinafter “mortgage contract”), and completed the registration of creation of a collateral security (hereinafter “registration of creation of mortgage”) with the Jeju District Court No. 28131, Apr. 2, 2013 as of April 2, 2013.
E. Article 1 of the mortgage contract of this case provides the obligor with the scope of the maximum debt amount.