beta
Text
1. On December 29, 2016, with respect to the Suwon District Court's Sung-nam Branch C and D (Dual) auction cases of real estate, the above court shall have jurisdiction over the auction cases of real estate.
Reasons
1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the respective entries and arguments set forth in Gap evidence 1 to 3:
A, on January 22, 2015, concluded a mortgage contract (hereinafter “mortgage contract”) with the Defendant on January 22, 2015 with respect to the building E, 106, 402 (hereinafter “the instant real property”), which was the only property, and completed the registration of establishment of mortgage of KRW 270,000,000 on January 23, 2015.
B. During the auction procedure for the sale of real estate in Sungnam Branch C and D (Dupl) real estate, the Gyeonggi Credit Guarantee Foundation for the Plaintiff’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Credit Guarantee Foundation (hereinafter “Game Credit Guarantee Foundation”) participated in dividends. When the instant real estate was sold at KRW 408,530,000 on the date of distribution implemented on December 29, 2016, the court of execution prepared a distribution schedule to the Defendant with the following order: 39,75,120 won, and 39,44,398 won, and 49,444,398 won, and 33,016,697,697, and 38,477, and 397,397,7, and 397,397, of the company’s dividends to the company.
C. The Gyeonggi Credit Guarantee Foundation was present on the date of distribution, and the Defendant raised an objection against the distribution of the said KRW 38,477,397 based on the instant collateral security right, and thereafter filed a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution on January 2, 2017.
The Gyeonggi Credit Guarantee Foundation filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of fraudulent act against the defendant et al. prior to the aforementioned objection, by asserting that the mortgage-backed contract of this case constituted a fraudulent act, and as such, the debtor A was declared bankrupt on May 18, 2016.
Then, the above case.