청구이의
1. The part of the lawsuit in this case concerning the non-permission of compulsory execution and the request for suspension of compulsory execution shall be dismissed, respectively.
2. The plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. D completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet on June 28, 2013 (hereinafter “instant real estate”).
B. On September 4, 2013, E completed the registration of creation of a mortgage consisting of the debtor D or the maximum debt amount of KRW 75,00,000 with respect to the instant real estate.
C. E applied for the auction of the instant real estate (hereinafter “instant auction”) with respect to the instant real estate as the Goyang Branch F for the said collective security right, and the said court rendered a decision to commence the auction on September 14, 2015 and completed the registration of the entry in the decision to commence the auction on September 15, 2015.
After that, the auction procedure of this case was conducted in duplicate with the same court G G real estate auction procedure.
On October 8, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a lien with respect to the instant real estate in the auction procedure, asserting that there was KRW 360,000,000 as to the instant real estate.
E. The Defendant purchased the instant real estate at the instant auction procedure, and completed the registration of ownership transfer after full payment of the sale price on September 6, 2016.
F. On January 6, 2017, the Defendant filed an application against D for an order of delivery of real estate with the Suyang Branch of the District Court, and on January 9, 2017, the said court rendered a decision that “D shall deliver the instant real estate to the Defendant” (hereinafter “instant order of delivery”).
G. On July 18, 2018, the Defendant intended to deliver and execute the instant real estate with the title of execution of the India Order, but did not execute the execution on the ground that “the Plaintiff alleged that it was the exercise of the right of retention and thus there was a difference in the possession relationship of the subject matter of execution”.
H. On August 21, 2018, the Defendant applied for the grant of the instant extradition clause to a successor to D as the Plaintiff’s successor. On August 22, 2018, the Defendant was granted the succeeding execution clause from the Jung-gu District Court Goyang Branch Branch on August 22, 2018.
[Ground of Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 2, 3, 7.