beta
Text
1. As to real estate listed in the separate sheet:
A. It was concluded on October 27, 2014 between B and Defendant A.
Reasons
1. The facts below the underlying facts may be acknowledged, either in dispute between the parties or in combination with the whole purport of the arguments as to Gap evidence 1 to 19 (including numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and this Court's fact inquiry reply as to the Kinok of this Court.
On February 27, 2012, the Plaintiff concluded a credit transaction agreement that lends KRW 652,00,000 to Nonparty C (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) as the primary debtor, and to Nonparty C as the representative director of the Nonparty Company as the joint guarantor.
(hereinafter “instant contract”). (b)
However, on May 24, 2013, the non-party company and B filed a lawsuit against the non-party company and B seeking payment of KRW 500,000,000,000, which is a part of the above loans, due to the non-party company and B’s failure to repay the loans under the contract of this case, and the judgment was rendered on May 24, 2013 that the non-party company and B would pay the above amount. The above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.
C. On October 27, 2014, as to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”), B: (a) completed the registration of establishment of a collateral on November 6, 2014 (hereinafter “instant 1 collateral security”) with respect to the Defendant A on the ground of the collateral security agreement (hereinafter “instant 1 collateral security agreement”) (hereinafter “instant 1 collateral security agreement”) (hereinafter “instant 1 collateral security”) and the Defendant EMD (hereinafter “Defendant EMD”) on October 27, 2014 (hereinafter “instant 2 collateral security agreement”) and completed the registration of establishment of a collateral on November 6, 2014 (hereinafter “2 collateral security agreement”).
(hereinafter referred to as “the instant 2-mortgage” or “the instant 2-mortgage establishment registration”).
On the other hand, the non-party company is above the plaintiff on February 27, 2012.