beta
Text
1. As to shares of 1/2 of the real estate listed in the separate sheet:
A. It was concluded on March 6, 2013 between the Defendant and B.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff’s claim 1) The Solomon Mutual Savings Bank borrowed 830,000,000 won to B at an interest rate of 5.5% (variable interest rate) and 25% of overdue interest rate. 2) The Solomon Mutual Savings Bank transferred the above loan claim to the Korea Financial Savings Bank on September 6, 2012 following a decision to transfer a contract on the Structural Improvement of the Financial Industry. At that time, the said decision to transfer a contract was published in newspapers pursuant to Article 14-2, 2, 3, and 4 of the Act on the Structural Improvement of the Financial Industry.
3) On July 31, 2013, our Financial Savings Bank transferred the above loan claims to a limited-liability company specializing in Mustonal Securitization, and notified the transfer of claims to B on August 7, 2013. After which, on December 10, 2014, the Musston Trading Limited Company transferred the above loan claims to the Plaintiff on December 10, 2014, and notified B of the transfer of claims to B on January 26, 2015. 4) The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming the transfer of claims against B on February 5, 2016, “B” with the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2015Ga50941, 2015, and 390,652,631 won among them, and 200% of the annual interest rate from January 15, 2016 to 15, 2016.”
B. On March 6, 2013, B entered into a donation contract with the Defendant, who is his/her spouse, as of March 6, 2013, with respect to 1/2 shares of the real estate indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”). On March 7, 2013, B entered into a donation contract with the Defendant as of March 6, 201, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the Defendant’s future as of March 7, 2013 under the receipt of the Goyang-gu District District Court senior registration office.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 10 (including branch numbers in case of additional number), the fact inquiry results against the Court Administration Office of this Court, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. This safety defense.