beta
Text
1. All of the instant lawsuits are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On November 18, 2008, the Plaintiff’s 3 multi-household housing (hereinafter “instant loan”) on the ground of Pyeongtaek-si M on November 18, 2008.
Of the two-thirds shares owned by J, the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter “registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage of this case”) with the debtor as the J, the mortgagee as the plaintiff and the maximum debt amount of which are KRW 250,000,000,000.
2) On September 201, 201, J filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the creation of the instant neighboring area by public notice on April 5, 2012. Defendant D, the creditor of J, by subrogation, revoked the registration of the establishment of the instant neighboring area on the ground of the aforementioned judgment on May 31, 2012.
3) On July 2012, the Plaintiff filed an appeal for the subsequent completion of the instant judgment with Seoul Eastern District Court Decision 2012Na6440, and on April 24, 2013, the Plaintiff was sentenced to “the cancellation of the first instance judgment and the dismissal of the J’s claim” (the confirmation on May 14, 2013), and around June 2013, the Plaintiff completed the registration of the instant establishment registration on September 25, 2013 by filing a lawsuit seeking the cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage (the Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2013Gahap21462, supra).
B. The process of acceptance and the seizure and provisional seizure of the Plaintiff and the Defendants were incorporated into the National Land and Housing Corporation’s housing site development project. 1) As the loan of this case was incorporated into the National Land and Housing Corporation’s housing site development project, the procedure of acceptance was carried out upon the application of the Korea Land and Housing Corporation’s ruling. 2) ① Defendant B, based on the authentic copy of the Cheongju District Court’s 2009Kahap92 Cheongju District Court’s 2838, Jan. 3, 2011, based on the executory protocol of purchase price for the claim amounting to KRW 102,151,180, Jan. 6, 2011.