beta
Text
1. As to the claim for construction cost of KRW 63,600,000, the Defendant held against C company, as of November 9, 2016.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On June 201, the Defendant acquired a claim for the construction price of KRW 63,600,000 against the C company representing Already D (hereinafter “C company”).
B. On December 28, 2011, C concluded a mortgage agreement with the Plaintiff on the establishment of the right to collateral security (hereinafter “instant collateral security agreement”) with respect to F, G, H land (hereinafter “Eri”) and G ground-based buildings (hereinafter “AB building”) and F, G, H, H 4, 5, 5, and 6 buildings (hereinafter “4,5, and 6 buildings”) with respect to the maximum debt amount of 750,000,000 won, the maximum debt amount of the mortgage as the obligor C, and the Plaintiff as the mortgagee, and the maximum debt amount of 170,000,000,000 won as the obligor C, and the Plaintiff as the mortgagee, on April 30, 2012, C concluded a mortgage agreement with respect to the establishment of the right to collateral security (hereinafter “instant collateral security agreement”).
C. On March 16, 2016, the Defendant filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the instant collateral security contract against the Plaintiff by asserting that the instant collateral security contract constituted a fraudulent act, in order to preserve its claim for its construction cost.
(2) On October 14, 2016, the lower court rendered a favorable judgment against the Defendant on the ground that the instant collateral agreement constitutes a fraudulent act.
On November 3, 2016, the plaintiff filed an appeal on November 3, 2016 and the appellate court is continuing.
(Seoul High Court 2016Na2078364). D.
On March 7, 2017, the Plaintiff asserted that “the Defendant’s claim for construction payment, the preserved claim, has expired by prescription,” which was submitted to the appellate court of the relevant lawsuit.
In a preparatory document dated March 9, 2017, submitted by the defendant to the same court, "C" has not only approved the defendant's claim, but also waived the prescription benefit even if the statute of limitations for the claim has expired.
Then, Crhe asserts that he was “the Defendant on November 9, 2016.”