beta
Text
1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.
3. The judgment of the court of first instance is ordered.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court of first instance for the acceptance of the judgment is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment as to the defendants' allegations as follows. Thus, this is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Additional determination
A. Defendant A’s assertion 1) in order to secure the amount of KRW 150 million leased to C prior to December 18, 2013, prior to the occurrence of the Plaintiff’s claim for reimbursement against C, Defendant A created the right to collateral security under the name of Defendant A, which is KRW 200 million with respect to the instant land, on December 18, 2013. After additional loaning KRW 200 million to C on December 18, 2014, Defendant A cancelled the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage as of December 18, 2013, and increased the maximum debt amount to KRW 450 million with C on July 15, 2014 (hereinafter “instant right to collateral security”).
(2) Defendant A entered into the instant contract and completed the registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage. Defendant A was unaware of the fact that the said contract would prejudice other creditors, including the Plaintiff at the time of entering into the instant contract. Even if not, Defendant A was unaware of the fact at the time of the establishment of a right to collateral security on December 18, 2013, the scope of cancellation of the instant contract and the scope of cancellation of the establishment of a right to collateral security under the instant contract should be limited to the portion exceeding KRW 200 million. (2) Taking into account the fact that Defendant B (i) calculated excessively less than the value of KRW 234 square meters of land for Pyeongtaek-si factory on July 2014, the value of active property, including the instant land, exceeds C’s value of the small property.
② On July 30, 2014, Defendant B, as a means to lend and collect business pay to C, was “the mortgage agreement on the instant land” between C and C.