beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On March 25, 2008, the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff were creditors who leased KRW 1.1 billion to C&N Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “debtor”). On or around March 25, 2008, the Plaintiff and the debtor company agreed to make a real estate security trust with the debtor company as the first beneficiary of the Plaintiff on each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by it (hereinafter “instant real estate”). Accordingly, on March 25, 2008, the ownership transfer registration based on the instant real estate was completed in the future in Korea Land Trust Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Korea Land Trust”).
B. On July 26, 2004, the Defendant, who is another creditor against the debtor company, was issued a seizure order against the debtor company as Seoul Eastern District Court Order 2004Da15668 on the executory exemplification of the payment order. On March 24, 2010, the Defendant issued a seizure order against the debtor company against the right to claim for the transfer registration of ownership against the real estate of this case on the ground of the termination of trust against the Korean land trust (hereinafter “instant seizure order”).
C. On October 31, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the debtor company and the Korea Land Trust against the debtor company and filed a lawsuit, and the enforcement of the instant seizure order, etc. is cancelled, the Plaintiff followed the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration of the instant real estate with respect to the debtor company. The debtor company was sentenced to the judgment that on February 25, 2008, the Plaintiff would implement the procedure for registration of ownership transfer registration based on the transfer transfer agreement with respect to the instant real estate (Seoul Central District Court 2013Da80991), and this judgment became final and conclusive as it is.
(hereinafter referred to as “the final and conclusive judgment of this case”). [The grounds for recognition] does not dispute, and there are evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4 through 6.