beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. A, a grandchild born between D and C, around 201, has forged loan documents regarding the Dobong-gu Seoul E apartment and 7 Dong 1107 (hereinafter “instant apartment”), which is the joint ownership of parents, to obtain loans from the Plaintiff, and sought a male who is not on the name of the Defendant and father D, who will serve as C, in coloring with the Internet.
B. As to the instant apartment, the Plaintiff: (i) as of November 4, 201, received on November 4, 2011 from the Seoul Northern District Court of Seoul Northern District, KRW 82,80,000,000; (ii) completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage with the debtor C and the mortgagee as the Plaintiff; and (iii) performed the loan of KRW 69,00,000,000 upon the completion of the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage with the payment of KRW 78,00,000,000 to the maximum debt amount as of April 17, 2012, and (iv) completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage with the debtor as C and the mortgagee as of December 3, 2012, the Plaintiff implemented the loan of KRW 65,00,000,000 with the registration of creation of a collateral security interest of KRW 79414, Dec. 3, 2012.
C. (1) The Plaintiff filed an application for the auction of real estate rent on the instant apartment with the Seoul Northern District Court F, which had been voluntarily decided on March 10, 2015, and the auction procedure had been conducted upon the said court’s decision on voluntary commencement of auction on March 10, 2015. The instant apartment was sold to G on October 30, 2015, and G completed the registration of establishment of a mortgage on the instant apartment against the Seoul Northern District Court’s Dobong registry office of the Seoul Northern District Court (10171, Oct. 30, 2015, the maximum debt amount of the instant apartment was KRW 271,200,000, the debtor and the debtor as G and the mortgagee’s credit cooperative.
Luxembourg and D, on the ground that the registration of the establishment of each of the above establishment of a mortgage in the name of the plaintiff was invalid, shall be effected on G and the Daeban Credit Union, Seoul Northern District Court 2016Kadan105012.