beta
Text
1. The defendant has caused the plaintiff to restore the real estate stated in the attached list to the original state.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Defendant is currently the nominal owner of the real estate listed in the [Attachment] list (hereinafter “instant real estate”). The Plaintiff is the mother of C who is the former husband of the Defendant.
B. The right relation to the instant real estate, the ownership transfer registration of which was originally made under the name of the Plaintiff, was completed on or around August 1, 201, under the name of the Defendant on July 25, 2011. At the time when the ownership transfer registration was made under the name of the Defendant, the establishment registration of a neighboring agricultural cooperative in the name of the Plaintiff, the maximum debt amount, and KRW 60 million was completed with respect to the instant real estate. (2) On August 1, 2011, the Defendant created a collateral security (hereinafter “first collateral security”) in the name of the debtor, the Defendant, the maximum debt amount of KRW 15.3 million with respect to the instant real estate, while borrowing KRW 81 million from the Suwon Central Saemaul Treasury of the Republic of Korea on August 1, 2011.
The defendant paid 50,000,000 won to the above loans to the above North Korean Agricultural Cooperative Seoul and cancelled the registration of the establishment of a neighboring association in the name of the above cooperative.
3) The Defendant is a Korea Exchange Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Korea Exchange Bank”) on March 21, 2013.
A) As to the instant real estate with a loan of KRW 79 million, a collateral security in the name of the debtor, the defendant, the maximum debt amount of the foreign exchange bank amount of KRW 94,80,000 on the instant real estate (hereinafter “the second collateral security”).
A) Around that time, the creation of the first mortgage registration of this case was made and the registration was cancelled. 【The facts that there is no dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 7, Eul evidence No. 2, Eul evidence No. 3-1, 2, 4, 6, and 11, and the purport of the entire pleadings.
2. The defendant's assertion that the lawsuit of this case is unlawful as it was filed by his/her wife's son and Do against the plaintiff's will.
However, according to the statement of the certificate submitted by the Plaintiff in November 25, 2014, it is examined.