beta
Text
1. As to each real estate listed in the separate sheet, KRW 185,00,000 against C by the defendant.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. In order to secure a claim for a loan to a stock company C (including a corporation E, and a corporation prior to the change of a trade name; hereinafter “C”), D (hereinafter “D”) received, respectively, the right to collateral security of the maximum debt amount of KRW 1,074,00,000 from the Suwon District Court, No. 1402, Sept. 11, 2014, as the 14002 Receiving the maximum debt amount of KRW 1,074,000,000, and the right to collateral security of KRW 420,000,000 from the registry office as the maximum debt amount of KRW 198612, Dec. 15, 2014, respectively.
B. When C delays the payment of loan obligations, D filed an application for voluntary auction on each of the lands listed in paragraphs (1), (3) through (5) of the attached Table 1 (hereinafter “each of the instant lands”) and the buildings listed in paragraph (2) of the attached Table 2 (hereinafter “instant building”) owned by Suwon District Court F, with the Suwon District Court F, and on August 3, 2016, the auction procedure for the instant real estate was initiated.
(hereinafter “instant auction procedure”). C.
Although the Defendant concluded a new construction contract with C on the instant building and completed the construction, it asserted that C did not deliver the completed building to C on account of its failure to receive the construction cost of KRW 185,000,000 among the construction cost and possessed until it receives the said construction cost. On October 11, 2016, the Defendant reported a lien on the instant auction procedure with respect to the construction cost of KRW 185,00,000 as the secured claim.
The Plaintiff succeeded to the status of D in the instant auction procedure by acquiring a loan claim against D and a collateral security to secure it.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion and judgment
A. The argument and the key issue are the grounds for not establishing the right of retention reported by the Defendant. However, in this context, the key issue of the instant case is to determine the legitimacy of the instant case.