beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 28,33,213 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from December 29, 2015 to February 7, 2017.
Reasons
Basic Facts
The network C died on December 11, 2012, and succeeded to the network C by the Plaintiff, the Defendant, D, and E, who are children.
Before birth, the deceased C owned the F Forest Land of this case 595 square meters, G previous 1,123 square meters, and H previous 2,235 square meters (hereinafter “instant inherited land”). However, with respect to F Forest Land of this 595 square meters on January 9, 2013, the ownership transfer registration was made on the ground of legacy as of December 11, 2012 with respect to D on December 11, 2012, and with respect to the land of 1,123 square meters and H 2,235 square meters on January 9, 2013, the ownership transfer registration was made on January 1, 2013 with respect to the Plaintiff, Defendant, and D, one third share on each ground of legacy as of December 11, 2012.
As above, the Plaintiff, Defendant, and D concluded an exchange contract to transfer the inherited land of this case inherited to I, and as a result, to divide each loan on the attached list owned by I at the time.
At the time, the Plaintiff agreed to borrow the attached table Nos. 4, 5, and 7.
With respect to the instant inherited land, the ownership transfer registration was made to I on June 20, 2014, and with respect to each loan listed in paragraphs 1 and 3 of the attached list, each transfer registration was made to D on the same day, and with respect to each loan listed in the attached list Nos. 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7, to the Defendant on the same day.
On January 11, 2013, the inherited land of this case was set up as a joint collateral by the mortgagee D, the mortgagee-mortgage-backed agricultural cooperative, the maximum debt amount of KRW 192,00,000,000. However, I acquired the ownership of the inherited land of this case and acquired the status of the debtor of the said right on September 1, 2014 on the ground of contract acceptance.
[Ground of recognition] The Plaintiff’s assertion as to the claim for the entire pleadings and the records in Gap’s Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 6 (including each number), and the purport of the entire pleadings should have received ownership transfer from I for each of the loans listed in the separate sheet Nos. 4, 5, and 7. However, the Plaintiff cannot complete the registration of ownership transfer under the name of each of the above loans under the name of the Plaintiff at the time.