청구이의
1. The Defendant’s notary public against the Plaintiff is a promissory note No. 1154, 2013, dated October 18, 2013.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On September 4, 2006, the Plaintiff, C, and D (hereinafter “three persons including the Plaintiff”) purchased the instant officetel No. 101 Dong-dong 1803 (hereinafter “instant officetel”) at one-third of the purchase fund, and sold the said officetel in the future and sold it in the future, and purchased the said officetel around September 4, 2006.
B. Around the time of the purchase of the instant officetel, the Defendant entered into a title trust agreement with the above D, and the Plaintiff concluded a title trust agreement with the above D, and decided to register the Plaintiff’s 1/3 shares in the name of the Defendant, and the Plaintiff’s 1/3 shares in the name of D respectively.
Accordingly, on October 13, 2008, the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant officetel consisting of 1/3 and 2/3 shares in D shares was completed.
C. Meanwhile, three persons including the Plaintiff, etc. obtained a loan from a financial institution to raise the instant officetel purchase fund. The Defendant agreed with the Defendant as the debtor of the loan and the right to collateral security. On October 13, 2008, Incheon District Court Decision 105828 regarding the instant officetels, the Plaintiff, etc. established a collateral security (hereinafter “instant collateral security”) with the debtor and the maximum debt amount of KRW 530 million and received a loan from the South-dong Agricultural Cooperative, which was 410 million won from the remaining agricultural cooperative, as the Incheon District Court Decision 105828, Oct. 13, 2008.
(hereinafter referred to as the “instant loans”) D.
However, as seen above, since the instant officetel was not sold to a third party even after five years have passed since the registration of ownership transfer or establishment of a neighboring mortgage was completed, the name of the debtor of the instant collateral security and the instant loan and the name of the owner of the instant officetel 1/3 shares remain in the future of the defendant, the defendant demanded the third party, including the plaintiff, to transfer the said name.
On October 18, 2013, three parties, including the plaintiff, etc., such as the plaintiff, etc., are below the execution note as follows.