beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s compulsory execution against the Plaintiff by the Incheon District Court Decision 2003Kadan1969 Decided May 16, 2003.
Reasons
1. The defendant filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff and D seeking compensation for damages (the Incheon District Court Decision 2003Kadan1969) and rendered a judgment that "the plaintiff and D shall pay the plaintiff and D with the interest of 42 million won per annum and 5% per annum from April 30, 2003 to the date of full payment." The judgment became final and conclusive on July 17, 2003 (hereinafter "the judgment of this case"), and the contents of the judgment are as follows.
(1) In the above judgment, the plaintiff, the defendant, and the defendant (B) sold the F Building G (hereinafter "the housing of this case") from the representative director and the E Co., Ltd. with D directors at KRW 137 million and paid KRW 92 million in total the down payment, intermediate payment, and the remainder to the plaintiff and D during the period from September 14, 2001 to February 4, 2002, and paid KRW 45 million in remainder.
D, on September 25, 2001, without the consent of the defendant, borrowed 87 million won from H bank to the debtor on the instant house as collateral and set up a collateral security right.
In the event that the Defendant was aware that he would withdraw necessary measures, such as cancellation of the above right to collateral security, until the registration of ownership transfer is completed, the Plaintiff and D were paid the intermediate payment and the balance, but did not take any measures by February 4, 2002.
On May 3, 2002, the Plaintiff and D obtained a loan of KRW 87 million from H Bank to the Defendant, so they should receive only KRW 50 million as the sale price. The Plaintiff and D obtained an unjust benefit of KRW 42 million by receiving KRW 92 million, and thus, they did not resolve the debt settlement by June 3, 2002. Thus, the Defendant became liable for the debt settlement by collateral security.
Therefore, the Plaintiff and D have a duty to compensate for the difference between KRW 45 million and KRW 87 million, which the Defendant owed to the Defendant for the payment of the remainder. As such, the Plaintiff and D incurred a loss equivalent to KRW 42 million, which is currently liable for the difference of KRW 87 million.
ground for recognition: