beta
Text
1. The defendant (appointed party) and the designated parties are about the real estate stated in the attached Table 1 list to the plaintiff.
Reasons
1. In Jeju, B orchard 1,633 square meters (hereinafter “instant real estate”) is owned by C at the time of the recognition.
The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against C in the Jeju District Court 2013da10351 and received a favorable judgment, and the plaintiff filed a lawsuit in the Jeju District Court 2015da5103 and received a favorable judgment, and has a claim against C as it becomes final and conclusive.
The real estate of this case was completed by the Jeju District Court No. 1320, Jan. 7, 2003, the amount of KRW 100,000, the due date for payment, January 10, 2004, and the registration of establishment of a mortgage registered as D with the debtor C and mortgagee (hereinafter “the mortgage of this case”).
D On February 24, 2014, the defendant (Appointed Party) and the appointed parties inherited D at the ratio of 1/4, respectively.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1 to 6 evidence (including virtual number)
2. The Defendant (Appointed Party) established D and his wife E, Inc. F, thereby engaging in the manufacture and sale of health assistive food, and traded goods with C. The Defendant asserted that C created the instant mortgage for the repayment of the price of goods.
However, there is no evidence to prove that the secured claim of the instant mortgage exists.
Even if the secured claim exists, the mortgage of this case seems to have expired after the lapse of 10 years from January 10, 2004 due date.
[1] The Defendant (Appointed Party) asserts that the statute of limitations has expired as well as three years, if the price of goods has been claimed by the Defendant (Appointed Party). Defendant (Appointed Party) has been deposited from the G account of a stock company that C was in office as a representative director to KRW 300,000 to KRW 1,200,000,000 from D’s account from October 9, 2009. Defendant (Appointed Party) asserts that the statute of limitations has expired by paying the price of goods to E in the name of E around 20
According to the evidence Nos. 1 through 5, it is recognized that the money was deposited as alleged by the Defendant (Appointed Party), but the money deposited as above is the secured claim of the mortgage of this case.