beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's respective lawsuits against the defendant B and C shall be dismissed.
2. Defendant A is written in attached Tables 2, 3, and 4 to Nonparty D.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Korea Asset Management Corporation acquired the claim for a loan from the Korea Housing and Commercial Bank Co., Ltd. on the part of the Korea Housing and Commercial Bank against Nonparty D, and applied for a payment order against D with the Seoul Central District Court 2006 tea524, and on March 3, 2006, “D shall pay to the Korea Asset Management Corporation the amount of KRW 220,221,369 and the amount of KRW 90,000,00 per annum from October 20, 2005 to the full payment order.” At that time, the payment order became final and conclusive.
B. On September 2012, the Korea Asset Management Corporation transferred claims against D based on the above payment order to the Plaintiff. At that time, the Plaintiff was delegated by the Korea Asset Management Corporation with the authority to notify the transfer of claims and notified D of the transfer of claims to D.
C. On February 6, 1998, D filed a provisional registration of the right to claim transfer of ownership as to the real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 2, 3, and 4 with the Seoul East Eastern District Court's receipt of the Songdong District Court's registration office on February 5, 1998, which was based on the reservation to trade as of February 5, 1998, and as to the real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 3 and 4 with the defendant B on January 30, 2009, the provisional registration of the right to claim transfer of ownership was completed with the Seoul East East District Court's receipt of the transfer of ownership as of January 30, 2009 as of January 30, 2009, and ③ the registration of the right to claim transfer of ownership was completed with the defendant C on March 20, 209 as to each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 and 2 as of March 21, 2009.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1, 2-1, 2-2, 3-1 through 3-4, Eul’s evidence Nos. 1-1, 2 and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. As to the Plaintiff’s claim for the cancellation of each provisional registration due to the cancellation and restitution of the original status, the Defendant B and C, asserting that each of the pre-contracts between the Defendant D and B and C constituted a fraudulent act, as to the legitimacy of the litigation against the Defendant B and C.