beta
Text
1. As to real estate listed in the separate sheet:
A. The Defendant and Nonparty C concluded on December 10, 2012.
Reasons
1. The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4.
The Plaintiff borrowed KRW 70 million to Nonparty C from July 2012 to November 2012, 2012, and was issued a letter to the effect that C would repay the said money from November 30, 2012 to December 31, 2012.
B. Thereafter, on April 15, 2013, the Plaintiff drafted a notarial deed of debt repayment to receive KRW 30 million as to the above claim against C by April 30, 2013, KRW 15 million by May 30, 2013, and KRW 40 million by June 30, 2013.
C. On the other hand, on October 4, 2012, C concluded a mortgage agreement with the Defendant, as to the real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by C (hereinafter “instant real estate”), with the maximum debt amount of KRW 74.4 million as to the real estate indicated in the separate sheet owned by C (hereinafter “the instant mortgage agreement”). On the other hand, C concluded a mortgage agreement with the Defendant under the title of Article 16427 of the receipt of support from the Daegu District Court of the same month (hereinafter “the creation registration of a mortgage”).
2. Determination
A. In light of the above facts, prior to the occurrence of obligee’s right of revocation 1 fraudulent act and intent of deception, it can be acknowledged that C had been in excess of the obligation at the time of entering into the instant mortgage contract. According to these facts, C entered into the instant mortgage contract with the Defendant while exceeding the obligation and completed the instant mortgage establishment registration. As a result, C’s insolvency, which led to the lack of liability property to be granted to the Plaintiff and general creditors including the Plaintiff, and thus, even if the instant mortgage is to secure the Defendant’s genuine claim against C, the act of creating the instant mortgage is against the obligee’s equality, barring special circumstances.