beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
1. The underlying facts and the grounds for this part of the arguments by the parties are as follows: (a) the court of first instance considers “7,50,000 won” of the 2nd 17th son of the judgment of the court of first instance as “7,50,000 won”; and (b) add “the court of first instance” of the 3rd 5th son and received “the 3rd 7th son” as “(Seoul East Eastern District Court Decision 2014Na24732, Aug. 19, 2015)”; and (c) deems “the 1. Basic Facts and the part of the parties’ assertion” of the 2th son 17th son of the judgment of the court of first instance as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. Therefore, this part shall be cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. In light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff was transferred the apartment of this case as payment in kind to the defendant's whole debt owed to the plaintiff on April 11, 2007 between the defendant and the defendant on April 11, 2007, and since the registration of transfer of ownership with respect to the apartment of this case was completed on April 13, 2007 to H designated by the plaintiff on April 13, 2007, the defendant's obligation to borrow money against the plaintiff was extinguished by payment in kind.
Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.
① At the time of April 11, 2007, the Plaintiff asserted that the market price of the apartment of this case was KRW 600 million and that the remaining amount remains KRW 78,769,193 after settling the Defendant’s debt to other creditors from the purchase price was appropriated for the repayment of the Plaintiff’s claim.
However, on March 6, 2007, the Plaintiff has already secured the Defendant’s right to receive retirement allowances of KRW 80,548,080, but on the other hand, the real estate register of the apartment of this case was completed with the registration of provisional seizure such as L and M, and the registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage by J and I Co., Ltd. was completed, so it can be sufficiently expected that the Defendant’s obligation should be repaid when he subrogated for the Defendant’s obligation instead of receiving the apartment of this case.