beta
Text
1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 35,000,000 with respect to the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from June 27, 2017 to June 5, 2018.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On February 2, 2004, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to one-half of the 6,194 square meters of D Forest land in Seocheon-gun, Chungcheongnam-do.
B. On March 31, 2005, the Plaintiff completed on March 31, 2005 the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage amount of KRW 19,500,000 (hereinafter “mortgage-mortgage-mortgage”) with the creditor as the Defendant Association B (hereinafter “Defendant B”).
C. On July 8, 2005, the joint collateral of the instant collective security was divided into the said forests and fields, 6,194 square meters of the D forest and field, Seocheon-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun. Accordingly, the joint collateral of the instant collective security was changed into the said forests and fields divided.
On July 15, 2005, F completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the land of this case (hereinafter “the instant land”). On June 8, 2007, F completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the registration of ownership transfer of KRW 67.6 million around the maximum debt amount.
E. Defendant B filed an application for the auction of real estate rent with the Daejeon District Court Red support I on the basis of the instant right to collateral security with respect to the remaining forests, excluding G and H, among the forests, from among the forests, Seocheon-gun through Seocheon-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do, and Defendant B filed an application for the auction of real estate rent with the competent court J on September 18, 2014, and received a decision on voluntary auction from the said court on September 18, 2014.
F. When Defendant B continued a failure due to the instant mortgage, which was first priority in the auction procedure against the debtor F, it would not be problematic to secure the Plaintiff’s claim even if the instant mortgage was cancelled because it was a joint mortgage. As to the instant land, Defendant C, who was working as Defendant B’s vice head, voluntarily under the name of the Plaintiff without obtaining the consent of the Plaintiff in order to cancel the registration of creation of mortgage on the instant real estate, with the aim of cancelling the registration of creation of mortgage on October 5, 2015.