beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 578,378,765 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 5% from January 10, 2017 to September 1, 2017.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. 1) The process of the auction procedure with respect to each real estate of the instant case is run, etc.
A) On October 13, 2008, this Court B-C, D, and E (hereinafter “C, etc.”) on the ground that the right of retention exists.
(C) No. 201, 401, and 402 of the above-owned building (hereinafter “each of the instant real estates”)
(3) On October 14, 2008, the decision to commence the auction of real estate was rendered on October 14, 2008 (hereinafter “instant auction procedure”).
F) The sales price of KRW 1,052,367,00 (hereinafter “instant successful bid price”) is the purchaser at the instant auction procedure.
(2) On February 18, 2010, the said court completed the registration of transfer of ownership on January 21, 2010. (2) The said court prepared a delivery slip (hereinafter referred to as “instant issuance slip”) with the content that 1,038,383,037 won calculated by deducting 14,767,60 won for enforcement expenses from the total amount of KRW 1,052,367,000 for the instant successful bid price and its interest 783,637 won, which is the date of distribution.
3) C et al. appeared on the aforementioned date of distribution and raised an objection to the whole amount of delivery for the mining electricity. On the grounds of C et al.’s objection, the executing court deposited KRW 1,038,671,863 of the amount to be actually granted for the mining electricity on March 2, 2010 as KRW 403 of this Court in 2010, and KRW 14,767,600 of the enforcement cost as KRW 404 of this Court in 2010 (hereinafter “each of the instant deposits”).
(4) On the other hand, C et al. filed a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution, and finally, the lower court (Seoul High Court 2014Na654) did not exist due to the extinction of the claim secured by the mining electricity prior to the decision to commence the auction of this case, and thus, it is invalid that the instant auction was conducted on the basis of the lien for which there was no auction of this case due to the extinction of the statute of limitations, and F.