beta
Text
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. As to the portion of 1/3 of the real estate listed in the separate sheet between the defendant and C, 2014.
Reasons
1. On February 16, 2007, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer for the purchase and sale of land outside Korea on February 15, 2007 to E, who is the leakage of C, and received KRW 120,00,000 from C around that time.
C around February 15, 2007, on behalf of E, it was impossible for the Plaintiff to pay any balance to the land in the territory of the Republic of Korea to the Plaintiff, thereby borrowing KRW 100,000,000 from the Plaintiff until February 30, 200. The borrower drafted and issued a loan certificate (Evidence A 12) of the content of E’C by the borrower’s agent.
C and E, around February 15, 2007, around February 15, 2007, in relation to the land of the non-party, prepared and rendered to the Plaintiff each of the following certificates of borrowing (No. 22) (hereinafter “the respective certificates of borrowing”).
Japan: 10,000,000 won: A debtor and joint guarantor E: C debtor will borrow 100,000,000 won from the creditor on February 15, 2007 and repay the borrowed money until February 28, 2007.
By March 30, 2007, the portion of “to be repaid by March 30, 2007,” which read “to be repaid by March 30, 2007,” is written separately from several terms. On the other hand, around February 16, 2007, the Plaintiff received the establishment registration of a mortgage on the non-party’s land as a maximum debt amount of KRW 100,000,000, the debtor E-mortgage and the mortgagee.
However, after March 30, 2007, C and E did not repay to the Plaintiff KRW 100,000,000 on each of the instant loan certificates.
The decision of voluntary auction was made on October 5, 2009 at the request of the KK Association, which is a different collateral security right against the land of the non-party, and the non-party land was sold to M in the auction procedure following the decision of voluntary auction. The plaintiff submitted a claim statement, etc. under the above collateral security in the auction procedure, but the total amount of the actual dividends was distributed to the senior mortgagee and did not have been distributed to the plaintiff.
The plaintiff around December 2012, C is as follows.