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
[Claim]
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On December 15, 2008, the Plaintiff entered into a loan contract with B to lend each of the following: (a) KRW 100,000,000 on December 15, 2008; (b) KRW 50,000,000 on June 29, 2016; and (c) KRW 30,000 on July 6, 2015; and (b) entered into a credit card use contract with B on March 30, 2009.
At the time of entering into each of the above lending contracts and credit card service contracts, C as the representative director of B, jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation to be borne by B to the plaintiff according to each of the above contracts.
B around July 5, 2016, around July 5, 2016, the Plaintiff delayed the repayment of the principal and interest of the loan under the above loan agreement, and the Plaintiff received a partial repayment of each of the loans thereafter.
The Plaintiff’s remaining loans and credit card usage claims against B and C are the amount equivalent to KRW 95,808,595 and the principal amount of KRW 82,695,150 from December 8, 2016.
B. On June 10, 2016, the agreement to establish a mortgage between the Defendant and C was concluded between the Defendant and the Defendant as to the establishment of a mortgage on June 10, 2016 with regard to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant apartment”). The agreement to establish a mortgage between the Defendant and C, the debtor C, and the maximum debt amount of KRW 144,00,000, and the registration was completed on June 10, 2016 by the Seoul Central District Court’s registry No. 114996
(B) At the time of the conclusion of the instant mortgage contract, prior priority was established on the apartment of this case, the mortgagee E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Bank”) and the maximum debt amount KRW 322,800,000.
C. C, such as excess of C’s obligation, was in excess of the obligation at the time of entering into the instant mortgage contract, and there was no specific property except the instant apartment.
In the instant case, on October 21, 2016, upon the application for the auction of the apartment and the voluntary auction by the non-party bank.