beta
Text
1. As to the attached list real estate:
A. The Defendant and Nonparty C entered into on November 16, 2016.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On July 19, 2016, the Plaintiff issued a seizure and collection order regarding the claim for the purchase price of KRW 130 million against Nonparty D’s purchase price to Nonparty D with the claim amounting to KRW 1100 million of the remaining loan principal against Nonparty D, with the claim amounting to KRW 130 million, and the said order was served to Nonparty C on August 1, 2016.
B. The Defendant: (a) set up a collateral security contract with the Busan District Court Branch No. 114274, Nov. 16, 2016, which was received on November 16, 2016, with respect to the real estate stated in the separate sheet, C, the sole property of which is the attached list, as the maximum debt amount of KRW 130 million on the same day.
C. Meanwhile, E, the husband of Nonparty C, and F, the husband of Nonparty D, were indicted on May 23, 2016 for the purpose of evading the Plaintiff’s compulsory execution on August 10, 2018, and was convicted of having committed the criminal act that written a false agreement retroactively as of May 23, 2016, and was handed down as the case of evading compulsory execution, and the appeal of Nonparty C was dismissed, and the judgment of the first instance became final and conclusive.
[Ground of recognition] Uncontentious facts, Gap 1, 5 evidence, Gap 6-1 to Gap 8-2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. In regard to the claim that the Plaintiff alleged that the mortgage contract between Nonparty C and the Defendant constituted invalid or fraudulent act due to a false agreement, the Defendant, on August 23, 2016, determined the amount of 100 million won as the interest rate of 15% per annum on the ground that C had a debt to be repaid on August 23, 2016.
The loan was paid in the amount of KRW 50 million on the same day, and KRW 50 million on August 24, 2016, and the registration of establishment of a mortgage is delayed.
It asserts that it is late completed.
3. The Plaintiff’s claim for collection against Nonparty C was established as a collection order for the seizure and collection of claims around July 2016, as seen in the above facts of recognition, and the Defendant does not dispute the excess or insolvent status of C.
Unlike the defendant's assertion, the defendant non-party C.