beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On August 4, 2010, Solomon Savings Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “ Solomon Savings Bank”) loaned KRW 3,600,000 to Seoul Comprehensive Arts Co., Ltd., and on the same day, Lolomon Savings Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Rolomon Savings Bank”) guaranteed comprehensive collateral service to the extent of KRW 4,680,000,000, which Seoul Comprehensive Arts bears to Solomon Savings Bank.
B. The Solomon Savings Bank was declared bankrupt on April 30, 2013 and the Plaintiff was appointed as the trustee in bankruptcy of the Solomon Savings Bank.
C. Seoul General Arts Co., Ltd. delayed the repayment of the above loans and interest obligations, the Plaintiff received a payment order claiming payment of KRW 4,680,000,000 as a guaranteed obligation against the Guro Housing on January 6, 2015, and the said payment order was finalized on January 31, 2015.
Meanwhile, as to the portion of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “B”) 1, 3, (4) and 339/1483 of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”), a sales contract was concluded with respect to the portion of the real estate indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”), and as to the portion of KRW 1, 3, 4, and 339 of the purchase-price refund claim against B, the Defendant, who is the inside director of the B (the representative director at the time) was registered as a collateral security (the maximum debt amount of KRW 200,000,000,000, for the purpose of securing the claim for the purchase-price refund claim against B.
E. On July 17, 2015, the Plaintiff applied for a compulsory auction of real estate with title to the above payment order with respect to the instant real estate, which was owned or owned as an empty house at the time at the Jung-gu District Court. On the same day, the said auction procedure was revoked on the ground that it constitutes a case where the registration of the compulsory auction decision was completed, but it does not have any possibility of remaining under Article 102 of the Civil Execution Act, and the Plaintiff filed an appeal against it.