근저당권말소
1. The defendant is not less than 254,975§³ A forest in Busan Jin-gu, Busan, Busan.
(a) with respect to F/100 shares to B:
(b) 10/100.
1. Basic facts
A. On June 19, 195, the Korea Housing Guarantee Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Korea Housing Guarantee Co., Ltd.”) concluded a guarantee agreement with the Korea Housing Guarantee Co., Ltd. on the principal and interest of loans ( principal 1,00,000,000) to the Korea Housing Guarantee Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Korea Housing Guarantee”) against the Korea Housing Guarantee Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Korea Housing Guarantee Co., Ltd.”) and the Korea Housing Guarantee Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Korea Housing Guarantee Co., Ltd.)
B. The Korea Housing Guarantee Co., Ltd. paid the amount of KRW 319,463,013 in total on November 6, 1996 to the Seocho Bank, and accordingly, the amount equivalent to the above liability for joint and several liability was incurred to B. The remainder, other than the part partially recovered, is KRW 305,132,05,05, total of principal and interest as of September 11, 2014, when the instant lawsuit was filed.
C. On November 24, 2011, the Plaintiff acquired the principal and interest of the above joint and several liability amount against the Korea Housing Guarantee B. D.
On the other hand, the Busan District Court, Busan District Court, as No. 52795, Nov. 7, 1996, completed the registration of creation of a mortgage of KRW 1,500,000 as the debtor, the maximum debt amount of KRW 1,50,000,00 among the 6/100 shares of the 6/100 shares of the 6/100 shares of the 10/100 shares of the 10/100 shares of the 6/100 shares of the 6/100 shares of the 6/100 shares of the 254,975 square meters of the 26th of December 26, 2000.
(hereinafter referred to as “the establishment registration of the creation of the neighboring district of this case”). [Grounds for recognition] The establishment of the establishment of the neighboring district of this case is without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 3, and purport
2. As to the Plaintiff’s claim as to this case’s defense, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit based on the obligee’s subrogation right is unlawful on the ground that there is no evidence to recognize that B is insolvent, and thus, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit based on the obligee’s subrogation right is unlawful.