beta
Text
1. The defendant's right to claim reimbursement of KRW 130,00,000 as the secured claim regarding the real estate stated in the attached list shall be the secured claim.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Defendant, on April 23, 2012, entered in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant factory”) from B on April 23, 2012.
3) The Plaintiff’s father C was the representative of the Plaintiff’s father (hereinafter “D”) and leased KRW 20 million as lease deposit, KRW 3 million per month; and thereafter, the Plaintiff’s father was the representative of D (hereinafter “D”).
(2) On June 17, 2012, the Defendant concluded that the Defendant would not claim against B the necessary expenses or beneficial expenses for the use of and benefit from the real estate subject to sale, as well as for the purchase and sale agreement, by making the lessee C as a sales agreement. On August 30, 2012, the Defendant purchased the instant factory from B in the amount of KRW 682,50,000,000,000,000 in addition to the deposit.
3) When the lease term expires without fulfilling the contract as stipulated under the above lease agreement, D concluded a lease agreement with respect to the instant factory on June 16, 2014, setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 80 million, monthly rent of KRW 3 million. (B) The Plaintiff is the mortgagee of the instant factory, including the instant factory (hereinafter “instant real estate”), and as the Plaintiff did not pay the Plaintiff’s loan obligations to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff filed an application for voluntary auction on the instant real estate (Korean District Court E), and F and G were determined on April 7, 2015 as the payment period of KRW 2780,000,000,000 and the payment period of KRW 300,000,000,000,000 per annum.
2) On April 28, 2015, the Defendant reported the right of retention by asserting that there was a claim for reimbursement of beneficial expenses for the factory of this case, and on May 11, 2015, the said decision of permission of sale was revoked on the ground of the above right of retention report. [The facts that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, 6 through 9, and Eul evidence No. 2.