beta
Text
1. Defendant B Co., Ltd. shall pay KRW 396,00,000 to the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from May 15, 2008 to March 17, 2015.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On August 23, 199, the Plaintiff entered into a subcontract for the supply of and demand for mold construction among the new construction works of the E apartment in Nam-si Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E apartment”).
B. On May 30, 200, the Plaintiff concluded a sales contract under which the Defendant Company B (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) is to receive the E apartment 102 Dong 602 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) from the Defendant Company (hereinafter “instant apartment”) in lieu of the payment of the construction cost under the said subcontract (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).
C. On June 18, 2003, the Defendant Company completed the registration of preservation of ownership for each apartment unit E apartment unit, and established a joint collateral security (the maximum bond amount: 5,600,000,000 won, debtor: Defendant Company, F, G, H, and the instant collateral security (hereinafter “instant collateral security”).
Since then, the plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on the apartment of this case on the same day.
As the defendant company failed to repay the debt based on the above right to collateral security, the new Central Saemaul Depository applied for voluntary auction of the apartment of this case, and the decision of voluntary auction was made on April 19, 2006 by the Jung-gu District Court I.
E. On May 14, 2008, the Plaintiff subrogated for KRW 396,00,000 (on the deposit: KRW 74,000,000, KRW 119,000, KRW 3,000, KRW 300,000, KRW L200,000, and KRW 200,000) to the New-ro Central Saemaul Cooperative on the same day in order to revoke the said decision to commence the voluntary auction, and on May 16, 2008, the said decision to commence the voluntary auction was revoked on the same day.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination:
A. According to the above fact-finding on the ground of the judgment as to the claim against the defendant company, the plaintiff is the owner of the apartment of this case and the defendant company's objection.