beta
Text
1. The name of the defendant who completed each real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 and 2 among the instant lawsuits.
Reasons
1. According to the legal nature of the lawsuit seeking cancellation of the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage, the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage as stated in paragraph (2) of this Article was cancelled on May 31, 2016, as the real estate stated in paragraph (1) of the attached Table was sold in the procedures of voluntary auction conducted by Changwon District Court, and the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage as stated in paragraph (3) of this Article was revoked on June 7, 2016, as the real estate stated in paragraph (2) of the attached Table was sold in the Seoul Western District Court E voluntary auction procedure.
Therefore, this part of the lawsuit by the plaintiffs is unlawful as there is no benefit of lawsuit to seek cancellation of the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage already cancelled.
2. The Plaintiffs, as to whether a lawsuit seeking the denial of voluntary auction was lawful, have already been paid by the Defendant in excess of the secured obligation of each of the claims stated in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the claim, and thus, each of the claims stated in paragraph 4 of the claim, asserts that the auction shall be dismissed due to the lack of the secured obligation of the right to collateral security, and that the auction shall not be permitted.
Plaintiff
In the event that there is no secured debt in the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage which serves as the basis of the auction, the debtor, on such ground, raises an objection against the decision to commence the auction pursuant to Article 86(1) of the Civil Execution Act, receives an order to suspend the execution pursuant to Article 16(2) pursuant to Article 86(2) of the same Act, files a lawsuit against the so-called debt objection, such as cancellation of the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage, or confirmation of the existence of a debt, etc., and only can the process suspend by receiving an order to suspend the execution corresponding to Article 46 of the same Act, and cannot file a lawsuit seeking a refusal of direct auction (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da43684, Sept. 24,
3. The Plaintiffs held as to the claim for confirmation of the existence of an obligation are limited to the sum of KRW 132,331,700 from the Defendant, and the Defendant’s list on November 19, 2015.