beta
Text
1. The part of the claim to verify the validity of the mortgage contract among the instant lawsuit is dismissed.
2. The plaintiff's remainder.
Reasons
1. The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the following facts: Gap evidence 1, evidence 2, evidence 3, evidence 4-1, 2, evidence 5, evidence 6-1 through 3, evidence 7-2, evidence 8-1, evidence 8-2, evidence 9-1, and evidence 10-1, 2, evidence 11-1, evidence 12, evidence 12, evidence 13, and evidence 14, and the whole purport of the pleadings.
The Defendant’s registration of transfer of ownership in the name of B with respect to (i) 1,447 square meters of land for a factory and its ground factory building (hereinafter “instant D real estate”), and the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of B, 2,914 of shares in the name of B, 8,314 of each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”) was completed with respect to the shares of 5,398 shares in the name of B, 8,316 shares in the name of H.
With respect to the instant D’s instant real property, the registration of creation of a collateral for the debtor as E (hereinafter “E”) and the mortgagee as the plaintiff was completed on July 7, 2006, with the maximum debt amount of 250,000,000 won.
Article 5233 of the Suwon District Court’s Department of 15363, Feb. 4, 2008, regarding the instant real estate, the registration of establishment of each of the instant real estate was completed on January 30, 2008, with the Suwon District Court’s Office of 15363, which received on February 4, 2008, as to the title of the instant real estate, as to the establishment of a mortgage agreement, the maximum debt amount, the amount of debt amount, and the debtor B and the mortgagee as the defendant(s).
(B) On February 4, 2008, the collective security established with respect to each real estate of this case (hereinafter referred to as the “instant collective security”). B, as stated in the foregoing paragraph, set up the collective security and paid KRW 95,00,000 out of the amount loaned by the Defendant to the Plaintiff. On the same day, the registration of the establishment of the collective security in the name of the Plaintiff, which was completed in relation to the instant real estate of this case, was revoked.
B. The Plaintiff’s credit and collateral security (i.e., mortgage) against B.