beta
(영문) 인천지방법원 2020.04.08 2019나59557

근저당권말소

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. 1) On July 31, 2009, the Defendant lent KRW 10,000,000 to the Plaintiff on July 31, 2009 by setting the interest rate of KRW 3% per month and the date of payment of interest (hereinafter “pre-paid loan”).

(C) No. C underground floor D (hereinafter referred to as “C real estate”) in Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City to secure it.

(2) On October 8, 2009, the Defendant paid KRW 28,650,000 to the Plaintiff KRW 30,000,000,000 (hereinafter “instant loan”) excluding prior interest, etc. on the date of payment of interest and the date of payment of interest (hereinafter “instant loan”). The Defendant paid KRW 28,650,00,00 to the Plaintiff, excluding prior interest, etc. under the contract entered into for the creation of the instant loan.

3) On October 8, 2009, the Defendant, in order to secure the instant loan claims, shall carry out the real estate listed in the [Attachment C Real Estate] List as of October 8, 2009.

As to the debtor, the registration of the establishment of a mortgage on the purport of the claim in the amount of KRW 45,000,000 (hereinafter “the instant mortgage”) is deemed to be the “mortgage-mortgage”.

(B) The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking the implementation of the registration procedure for cancellation of the registration procedure for the establishment of the establishment of the neighboring mortgage of this case as Incheon District Court 2016Kadan249716.

2) The Plaintiff asserted that the registration of creation of a mortgage in the instant case should be cancelled since all of the instant loan claims were repaid, but the said court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on July 5, 2017. (3) Accordingly, the Plaintiff appealed as Incheon District Court 2017Na60455.

Of the claims asserted by the Plaintiff in the appellate trial, the loan agreement of this case was null and void or cancelled for the following reasons. ① The loan of this case was before it was amended by Act No. 10925, Jul. 25, 201; hereinafter “former Interest Limitation Act”).

Article 2(1), the former Interest Limitation Act.

참조조문