근저당권설정등기말소 등
1. The Plaintiff:
A. Defendant B is the Daegu District Court with respect to the Plaintiff’s 596m2 and 35m2, Seogyeong-gun, Chungcheongnam-do.
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. (1) On January 5, 2015, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 30 million from Defendant B to secure this, and entered into a mortgage contract with Defendant B on January 7, 2015 with respect to the size of 596 square meters and 35 square meters (hereinafter “each of the instant lands”) owned by the Plaintiff, the mortgagee B, and the maximum debt amount of KRW 50 million (hereinafter “instant mortgage”) on January 7, 2015. On January 7, 2015, the Daegu District Court completed the registration of the establishment of a mortgage (hereinafter “instant mortgage”) with the Plaintiff, the mortgagee B, the Defendant B, the maximum debt amount of KRW 50 million, as the receipt of January 7, 2015.
(2) On April 24, 2015, the Plaintiff repaid Defendant B the aforementioned loan amount of KRW 30 million and terminated the instant mortgage contract.
(3) On September 17, 2018, the Defendant C Co., Ltd. received a seizure and collection order of the right to collateral security against the instant right to collateral security as the Daegu District Court Branch Decision 2018TTT18TT187, and accordingly, on February 11, 2019, the supplementary registration of the seizure of the right to collateral security was completed on each of the instant land.
[Ground] Defendant B: Evidence No. 1 to 3, evidence No. 1 to 3, evidence No. 1 to 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings against Defendant C.
B. According to the facts of the judgment above, the secured debt of the instant case was entirely extinguished due to repayment, and as such, the Plaintiff’s declaration of termination was terminated due to the Plaintiff’s declaration of termination, Defendant B, the mortgagee, has the obligation to implement registration procedures for cancellation on April 24, 2015 with regard to the establishment registration of the instant mortgage on the ground of termination.
Since the seizure order of Defendant C Co., Ltd. against the claim secured by the instant right to collateral security is null and void as against the already extinguished claim, Defendant C Co., Ltd., the third party interested in the registration, is obligated to express his/her consent to the Plaintiff regarding the cancellation registration of the registration of the establishment
2. Conclusion, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case is accepted as reasonable.