beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff’s primary claim and the ancillary claim, establishing a mortgage on the attached real estate.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On February 6, 2013, the Plaintiff purchased three lots of land, including Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, which was owned by B on February 6, 2013, at the auction procedure, and acquired the ownership thereof, and B is the owner of the real estate indicated in the attached Form (hereinafter “instant building”) on the said land, and the Defendant is the b.
B. On January 19, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against B, who occupied the said land for the purpose of owning the instant building, with the Incheon District Court Branch of Branch Office 2015da15377, and on January 19, 2016, the Plaintiff paid the Plaintiff the amount calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from August 11, 2015 to the date of complete payment, and the Plaintiff paid the amount of money calculated at the rate of 2,046,066 won per month from June 30, 2015 to the date of complete delivery of 376 square meters, and this judgment was finalized on February 6, 2016.
C. On July 11, 2013, B concluded a mortgage agreement with the Defendant regarding the instant building with the maximum debt amount of KRW 50 million, the debtor B, and the mortgagee as the Defendant (hereinafter “mortgage agreement”). On July 11, 2013, B concluded a mortgage agreement with the Defendant, and completed the registration of the establishment of the neighboring mortgage (hereinafter “mortgage registration”) with the Incheon District Court Branch Kimpo-dong Office (No. 45851), which was received on July 11, 2013.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1, 2, and 5 (including virtual numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The plaintiff asserts that the mortgage contract in this case is a fraudulent act, and sought the cancellation of the registration of the mortgage in this case and its restoration to its original state, and the defendant asserts that the period of exclusion exceeds that of the above claim is unlawful.
According to the whole purport of the pleading, the Plaintiff becomes aware of the completion of the instant mortgage registration to the Defendant in order to prevent the exercise of the Plaintiff’s claim against the Plaintiff around October 25, 2013.