beta
Text
1. The plaintiff, the defendant B, and the other money obtained by deducting the costs of the auction from the price of the building to be put to an auction.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff concluded three guarantee insurance contracts with Defendant D as indicated below.
The table: The insured amount of the guaranteed insurance contract concluded by the Plaintiff and Defendant D during the period of the insured on May 19, 201, which was the date of the conclusion of the insurance contract, between March 28, 201 and May 25, 2011, to May 16, 2014, from March 28, 201 to May 25, 2014;
B. The Plaintiff issued an order to pay to the insured amounting to KRW 28,292,649 with insurance money, and applied for a payment order to Defendant D as Seoul Central District Court 2013 tea 92821. On May 6, 2013, the said court issued an order to pay to the obligee (Plaintiff) KRW 28,850,740 with interest of KRW 28,292,649 with interest of KRW 28,292,649 with interest of KRW 15% per annum from October 22, 2012 to May 31, 2013, and KRW 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment (hereinafter “instant payment order”), and the original copy of this case was served to Defendant D on May 31, 2013 and served on May 31, 2015 (hereinafter “instant payment order”).
C. Defendant D jointly owned the instant building with Defendant B, Defendant C, and one third share, respectively, and on the other hand, the registration of the establishment of the instant building was completed on the ground of the agreement on September 24, 2002, on the ground of the agreement on the establishment of a collateral security on September 24, 2002, which was respectively stipulated as “the mortgagee A, Defendant B, and the maximum debt amount KRW 30,000,000,” respectively.
On the other hand, as of September 2, 2015, the amount of indemnity against Defendant D after the Plaintiff subrogated under each of the above guaranty insurance contracts (=23,461,00 won No. 23,461,770 won No. 1 guaranteed insurance contract No. 9,769,770 won). As of the date of the closing of argument in this case, Defendant D as of the date of the closing of argument in this case is its active property and approximately 1/3 of the share value of the instant building.