beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff:
A. Defendant B is KRW 267,054,567 and the interest rate of KRW 17.75% per annum from February 21, 2018 to the date of full payment.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On August 24, 2011, the Plaintiff concluded an agreement with Defendant B to lend KRW 315,00,000 to Defendant B, and concluded a mortgage agreement with the maximum debt amount of KRW 409,50,000 with respect to KRW 229,100,00 with respect to KRW 229,00,00 in Jung-gu Incheon Special Metropolitan City owned by Defendant B, and completed the registration thereof on January 13, 2014.
(hereinafter referred to as the “instant real estate”) . N
B. Defendant B did not pay interest, thereby losing the benefit of time. Upon the Plaintiff’s application, there was a decision to commence a voluntary auction on June 17, 2014 by the Incheon District CourtO on the instant real estate.
(hereinafter “instant auction procedure”). C.
During the instant auction procedure, Defendant C Co., Ltd (formerly named P Co., Ltd., Ltd.; hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd”) reported the lien on the ground that there was a claim for construction cost equivalent to KRW 444,870,000, which was not paid by Defendant B, on August 22, 2014. On the same day, the lien report filed in Defendant D’s name was also accepted.
On October 14, 2014, November 12, 2014, and December 9, 2014, each of the auction dates was conducted with respect to the instant real estate, but all of them was inspected. The auction date scheduled as of January 12, 2015 was changed.
E. On March 24, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant Company and Defendant D to confirm the existence of the right of retention as Incheon District Court 2015Gahap52028, and on July 22, 2016, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have continued possession of the object necessary for the establishment of the right of retention prior to the registration of the decision of commencement of voluntary auction application filed by the Defendant Company. As a result, the Defendant D cannot be deemed to have received part of the right of retention from the Defendant Company. The Plaintiff’s entirety on the ground that “the evidence submitted by the Defendant Company” was transferred from the Defendant Company.