beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff lent KRW 15,00,000,000 to the Defendant on June 10, 2003, and KRW 15,000,000 on October 7, 2003.
On October 18, 2005, the Defendant created a right to collateral security (20,000 m20,000) regarding the instant land owned by the Defendant (3,218 m3,218 m2,00,000) with respect to the said loan.
B. On April 26, 2007, the Plaintiff additionally lent KRW 5,000,000 to the Defendant. On the same day, the Defendant drafted the instant loan certificate (Evidence 1) stating that “The Plaintiff borrowed KRW 30,000,000 from the Plaintiff, and would make reimbursement by July 31, 2007.”
C. Meanwhile, the instant land was established prior to the establishment of a senior mortgage on May 16, 2001, which was the maximum debt amount of 14,000,000, in the name of the D Association (hereinafter “D Association”), but on April 24, 2008, the voluntary auction procedure for the instant land was commenced on April 24, 2008 and sold to a third party on February 12, 2009, upon the request of D Association.
In the distribution procedure, the Plaintiff received dividends of KRW 9,177,346.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. The Defendant agreed to pay KRW 30,000,000 to the sum of the above loans plus interest of KRW 20,000,000, and prepared the instant loan certificate.
Then, the Plaintiff received only KRW 9,177,346 in the above auction procedure. Thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 20,822,654 (= KRW 30,000,000 - KRW 9,177,346) that the Plaintiff sought within the scope of KRW 20,00,000 and delay damages.
B. The Defendant informed the Plaintiff of the scheduled execution of the voluntary auction by the Defendant D Association, and the Plaintiff proposed to sell the instant land after acquiring the senior collateral security obligation, and that he would return the balance to the Defendant by appropriating it to the Plaintiff’s claim with the sale price.
The defendant accepted this and took precedence over the defendant.