beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 132,056,181 as well as 5% per annum from August 31, 2016 to November 24, 2016 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in combination with the whole purport of the pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 4:
1) The Korea Asset Management Corporation shall jointly refer to the real estate listed in the attached list 1 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) owned by B in accordance with B’s default on taxes from the office of Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, and [Attachment 1-1-4]-1-4 and [5]-5] of the instant building site.
(2) The public sale procedure of this case (hereinafter referred to as “instant public sale procedure”) is entrusted with the public sale procedure of this case by proxy.
(2) On September 24, 1996, the Plaintiff filed an application for the allocation of KRW 1 billion during the public auction procedure of the instant case as a mortgagee who completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage of KRW 1 billion with respect to the instant building.
3) The Korea Asset Management Corporation (Korea Asset Management Corporation) deducted 29,654,880 won from 1,004,870,200 won from 975,215,320 won, which remains after deducting 29,654,880 won from 1,004,00 won of the sales amount of the real estate of this case plus the deposit interest interest, and merged 43,215,600 won with the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City Office (Order 1: the pertinent tax), 64,635,604 won, 132,056,181 won, 132,05,181 won with the Plaintiff (the above two companies were merged with the Defendant Digital Korea Corporation).
hereinafter referred to as DNA Korea Co., Ltd. is the defendant
(4) On December 23, 2015, the Plaintiff raised an objection against the original distribution statement for Defendant, D, and E on the ground that the Plaintiff should distribute the remainder of KRW 932,00,320,00 after deducting the amount of expenses for disposition on default from the distribution date and the amount of distribution to the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City Office. However, the Korea Asset Management Corporation raised an objection against the original distribution statement for Defendant, D, and E on the ground that the aforementioned amount should be distributed to the Plaintiff.