beta
Text
1. On September 25, 2012, the Defendant: (a) on each real estate listed in the separate sheet to the Plaintiff, the Cheongju District Court of Cheongcheon District.
Reasons
1. The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5 through 9, and Eul evidence Nos. 4 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), unless there is a dispute between the parties, or in full view of the purport of the whole pleadings:
C filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff and D as Daejeon District Court 201Gahap2504, May 22, 2012, the appellate court (Seoul High Court 201Na5620) concluded conciliation that “The Plaintiff and D jointly pay KRW 85,00,000 to C by August 31, 2012.”
B. On September 21, 2012, the Plaintiff and D loaned KRW 50,000,000 from the Defendant to C (hereinafter “the instant loan”), and the remainder of KRW 35,000,000 on November 20, 2012, paid to C with the Plaintiff a loan.
C. Meanwhile, in order to secure the loan debt of this case, the Plaintiff: (a) on September 25, 2012, the Cheongju District Court Cheongcheon District Court 12637 regarding each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the instant real estate”); (b) on September 25, 2012, the Plaintiff created the Defendant’s maximum debt amount of KRW 90,000,000; (c) on October 5, 2012, the Plaintiff and D provided a mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-General Law Firm 2479 with respect to the loan debt of this case; (d) on October 5, 2012, a notary public drafted a notarial deed of money loan agreement with the Defendant as the maximum debt amount of KRW 90,000,000,000 for the obligor D, joint and several surety-sureties-sureties, and joint and several surety-sureties (hereinafter “the instant monetary loan for consumption”).
On October 23, 2013, the Plaintiff paid KRW 60,000,000 to the Defendant respectively, and KRW 8,200,000 on April 23, 2014, and repaid all the principal and interest of the instant borrowed money to the Defendant.
2. According to the facts of the judgment as to the cause of the claim, since the secured debt of the instant right to collateral security was fully repaid on April 23, 2014, the Defendant was the Plaintiff.