fbpx Skip to content

A case in which the trustee made a decision to dismiss on behalf of the trust company, which is the trustee, in the case of the disposition to suspend the public sale procedure against the trustee under the real estate security trust contract

The client is a large domestic K trust company, and the M developer signed the land as collateral in the process of purchasing the land, which is the business site, and making a PF loan of about 9 billion won from financial institutions for the sale of a new building. As a trustee under the real estate security trust contract, D’LIGHT Law Group performed the duties as a trustee after receiving the ownership of the land according to the trust contract. However, as Company M defaulted on the debt of the PF loan, financial institutions requested a short sale from Trust Company K, and when Trust Company K started the public auction procedure, Company M made a provisional disposition against Trust Company K to request the cessation of the public sale process. If the trust contract in this case is terminated in the future, the developer M asserts the right to claim that the trustee, the applicant, M, can transfer the ownership of the trust real estate from the trustee, the respondent K, to the trust company, while the lending financial institution and K trust company There was a separate agreement on the cessation of the short sale of the company, and although the fact of default was acknowledged, it was argued that there was a need for preservation in view of various unavoidable circumstances and the fact that the debt could be paid sooner or later. As for our corporation, the right to claim the transfer of ownership of the trust real estate is a future claim, and it is necessary to explain the possibility of its occurrence, but as long as it is clear that there is no specific explanation for it, and the fact of default, the short sale according to the real estate security trust contract in this case The fact that the procedure is legal, that other circumstances do not fall under the circumstances that can suspend the public auction process, the claim of a separate agreement and the nature of the provisional disposition to establish a temporary status require a high degree of explanation, but there is no objective proof of the agreement We refuted the claims of the applicants by issue, explaining in detail that it is difficult to believe that there was an agreement, and that prompt payment of debts cannot be expected given the current state of sale. Accordingly, the court acknowledged our corporation’s argument and decided to dismiss all of the applicant’s application for a disposition to suspend the public sale procedure, as there was no circumstance to suspend the public auction procedure in this case.

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on email