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. The Dongnam-si Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Dongnam-si”), the owner of the building on the ground of the 1392-26 ground of the Busan metropolitan transportation Daegu (hereinafter “ELri-si”) concluded a security trust agreement with the International Trust Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “International Trust”) in order to secure the Defendant’s obligations for loans, and with the Defendant as the first and second beneficial interests.
B. On December 31, 2012, the Defendant: (a) sold the purchase price of KRW 6,700,000,000 in total; (b) together with loans; (c) claims for loans and rights incidental thereto; (d) claims for guarantee; and (e) right to preferential benefit in the building of El Arabiaia, which was provided as a security therefor, to the SNK (hereinafter “SNK”); (c) lent the said purchase price to the ENK; and (d) granted a pledge on the said right to preferential benefit from ENK as security for the said loan.
C. Since then, E.N. sold five of the above priority interest, at the same time, the new sale of the five of the above priority interest, and on July 1, 2013, sold the remainder to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant sales contract”), and on October 2, 2013, notified international trust and the Defendant of the preferential transfer of the right to benefit.
On October 1, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a request for public auction with the Defendant and the International Trust for the said four floors on the ground of the loss of the due diligence in the South Asia. Accordingly, on October 2, 2013, the Defendant requested an international trust to proceed with the public auction on the international trust on October 2, 2013, and started the public auction procedure on October 14, 2013. In the process of the public auction, the Plaintiff’s code communication (hereinafter “copi communication”) was awarded the bid for the said four floors in the said public auction procedure to KRW 5,110,00,000.
E. The international trust asserts that the validity of the instant contract is problematic, and that part of the said pledge was acquired by the Defendant and the Defendant.