beta
Text
1. The Defendants are the Korea Asset Management Corporation (Korea Asset Management Corporation) No. 1,000,000.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On January 23, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a contract to establish a comprehensive collateral security agreement with D regarding the real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by D (hereinafter “instant real estate”) with D as the debtor D, with the maximum debt amount of KRW 83,200,000.
B. As of November 19, 2014, the Plaintiff has a claim of KRW 189,063,232 ( KRW 179,00,000,063,232) by adding the principal and interest to D as of November 19, 2014.
C. Meanwhile, the Korea Asset Management Corporation proceeds from the real estate public auction procedure (hereinafter “instant public auction procedure”) with respect to the instant real estate in Scheon Tax Office, and prepared a distribution statement in order to allocate the amount of KRW 3,340,130 among the amount to be distributed at the open allocation date on November 19, 2014, to Defendant A and B in the order of KRW 14,319,019, KRW 3,45,110 to the Plaintiff, and KRW 58,854,782 to the Plaintiff, respectively.
At the distribution date, the Plaintiff stated each objection against the Defendants, and filed the instant lawsuit on November 25, 2014.
E. On February 4, 2013, the instant real estate: (a) concluded a contract on January 23, 2013 (around 30,000,000 won for lease on a deposit basis; (b) the entire residential building; (c) the duration from January 23, 2013 to January 23, 2015; and (d) Defendant B and Gyeonggi-do Dongbcheon-si E), the registration of the establishment of chonsegwon was completed.
F. On August 4, 2014, Defendant A, via his agent F, reported the distribution claim to a lessee who agreed to KRW 15,000,000 monthly rent on March 21, 2014, and KRW 100,000 monthly rent on March 21, 2014. Defendant B, by designating G as his agent, reported the claim to lease on a deposit basis with a deposit of KRW 30,000,000 on January 23, 2013.
G. According to the survey on the current status of the public auction procedure of this case, the defendant A refused to provide accurate information while asserting that the lease relationship exists, and the defendant B is not aware of the moving-in household.