beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 162,056,578 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from August 21, 2014 to January 14, 2015.
Reasons
1. The following facts do not conflict between the parties or may be acknowledged by taking into account the following facts: Gap evidence 1-1-3, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 4, Gap evidence 5-1, 2, Gap evidence 6-3 through 6, 8, 22, 28, 30, 37, 48, Eul evidence 2, and Eul evidence 3, and Eul evidence 3.
The plaintiff and the defendant married on March 22, 1989, and they divorced on January 12, 2009, and C are the birth of the defendant.
B. On August 18, 2005, as to the instant real estate owned by Suwon District Court, the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter “mortgage”) was completed with the maximum debt amount of KRW 1,00,000,000,000, and the debtor C and the mortgagee as the defendant of the right to collateral security (hereinafter “the right to collateral security”) as the maximum debt amount of KRW 300,000,000,000, the debtor C and the plaintiff of the right to collateral security (hereinafter “the right to collateral security”) was completed with the maximum debt amount of KRW 44696, which was received on the same day of support, as the maximum debt amount of KRW 4696, which was the debtor C and the plaintiff of the right to collateral security (hereinafter “the right to collateral security of this case”). As to the instant real estate at the time, the right to collateral security was completed with the maximum debt amount of KRW 1627,00,000,000,000 and KRW 3636,005,05,000.
C. On July 6, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application for a voluntary auction on the instant real estate with Suwon District Court Suwon District Court D, and the auction procedure (hereinafter “instant auction procedure”). D.
C On September 7, 2012, the registration of the establishment of the instant collateral security was filed against the Plaintiff on the ground that the registration of the establishment of the instant collateral security was made under the pretext of the establishment, and the existence of the secured debt is invalid, and thus, the registration of the establishment of the instant collateral security was filed against the Plaintiff.