배당이의
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On October 5, 2004, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the Defendant for KRW 252,00,000 for the purchase price of KRW 252,00,00 for Pyeongtaek-si Do Do 3,615 square meters, E 1,938 square meters (hereinafter “instant real estate”).
B. On October 18, 2004, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 252,00,000 for the purchase price of the instant sales contract.
C. The Plaintiff and the Defendant decided to register the ownership transfer of each of the instant real estate at the time the Defendant wants, and instead, the Plaintiff completed the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter “mortgage”) with the head of Suwon District Court No. 52602, Oct. 19, 2004, the maximum debt amount of KRW 400,000,000 for each of the instant real estate, which was received on Oct. 19, 2004.
On December 2, 2014, the Defendant filed an application for the auction of real estate rent with Suwon District Court Sejong based on the instant right to collateral security, and on March 22, 2017, the said court set up a distribution schedule to distribute KRW 400,000 to the Defendant and distribute KRW 49,340,039 to the Plaintiff.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 through 6 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant received KRW 400,000,000 from the instant right to collateral security, and that the said right to collateral security was secured only by the purchase price of KRW 252,00,000,00, and that the right to collateral security was also secured by the right to claim for the damage of excreta
Even if this occurs due to the reason attributable to the defendant, the plaintiff is not liable for damages to the defendant. It is unlawful that this court distributes dividends to the defendant in excess of KRW 252,00,000 to the defendant, so the distribution schedule should be revised as stated in the purport
3. According to the above facts of recognition, the secured obligation of the instant right to collateral security is revoked due to the Plaintiff’s nonperformance of the obligation to transfer ownership of each of the instant real estate and thus recognized as restitution.