beta
(영문) 춘천지방법원 2016.01.26 2015가단54489

근저당권말소

Text

1. The defendant shall receive on November 17, 1998 from Cheongju District Court Decision Cheongju District Court regarding the real estate stated in the attached list to B.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 26, 2007, the Plaintiff filed a claim for reimbursement against B, etc. with the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2007Kadan151373, and was sentenced on July 26, 2007 by the above court that “the Defendant jointly and severally paid to the Plaintiff KRW 146,901,924 and delay damages for KRW 126,93,302 among them,” and the above judgment against B was finalized on August 21, 2008.

(hereinafter “instant judgment”). B.

As of June 9, 2015, the Plaintiff’s claim based on the instant judgment against B remains in total of 417,340,189 won.

C. Meanwhile, on November 6, 1998, the Defendant lent KRW 30 million at the interest rate of 24% per annum to B (hereinafter “the instant loan claim”), and as to the real estate stated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “the instant real estate”) to the Defendant for the security of the said debt, the Cheongju District Court completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter “registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage”) with the maximum debt amount of KRW 40,000,000 on November 17, 1998, No. 27891, which was received on November 17, 1998, with respect to the real estate as indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

B has no specific property other than the real estate indicated in the attached list, while the Plaintiff bears the obligation based on the judgment of this case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff filed a claim for the cancellation of the registration of creation of a new mortgage in the name of the defendant on the ground that the secured debt was repaid in subrogation of the non-sufficient B or the expiration of the extinctive prescription period.

B. 1) According to the facts of recognition of the existence of the preserved claim, the Plaintiff has the claim against B of this case, 417,340,187 won, and damages for delay thereof, which can be the preserved claim against the obligee’s subrogation right. 2) As seen earlier of insolvency, B has no particular property other than the instant real estate.