beta
Text
1. As to the share of 45/225 of the E- Apartment No. 203, Yongsan-gu, Seoul, the defendant and C.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On February 28, 1997, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against C claiming a loan of KRW 800 million and its delay damages as Seoul District Court 96Gahap69277 and received a favorable judgment on February 28, 1997. The above judgment was finalized on May 30, 1997.
(A) The plaintiff filed a new suit to interrupt the prescription of the above judgment as Seoul Central District Court 2006Gahap23874 and received a favorable judgment on November 1, 2006. (b)
C was inherited on March 22, 2013 by inheritance of 45/225 shares (hereinafter “instant real estate shares”) out of Nos. 203, 203, and 1, Yongsan-gu, Seoul.
C. On June 30, 2014, C concluded a mortgage agreement on the instant real estate share with the Defendant, a private village, without any other property than the instant real estate share. On June 30, 2014, C concluded a mortgage agreement with the Defendant as to the instant real estate share, and completed the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter “the registration of establishment of a mortgage prior to the instant real estate”) with the Seoul Western District Court’s registration office as of June 30, 2014, the maximum debt amount of KRW 156,80,000, the debtor C and the mortgagee as the Defendant.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 8, and 9, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The act of an obligor’s offering of real estate, the sole property of which is one of the obligees, as collateral security, to one of the obligees is a fraudulent act subject to the obligee’s right of revocation in relation to other obligees, barring any special circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da5710, Apr. 14, 2006). According to the above acknowledged facts, the act of an obligor’s offering of collateral to a third party against a third party constitutes a fraudulent act is presumed to be a beneficiary’s bad faith (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da5710, Apr. 14, 2006). According to the above recognized facts, C’s offering