beta
(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.11.23 2016가단40510

근저당권말소등기

Text

1. The Defendant: (a) on January 2013, 2013, filed with the Plaintiff the Suwon District Court with regard to the Plaintiff’s share of 1/5 of the 2,665 square meters of C forest land.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On January 29, 2013, the Plaintiff completed the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage with respect to 1/5 shares (hereinafter “the instant real estate”) out of 2,665 square meters of C forest land 2,65 square meters (hereinafter “the instant real estate”) with the network D (hereinafter “the deceased”) on the following grounds: (a) the maximum debt amount of KRW 15,00,000; (b) the debtor, the Plaintiff, and the deceased;

(hereinafter referred to as “the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage of this case”). B.

On January 28, 2013, the Plaintiff drafted and issued to the Deceased a certificate of borrowing that KRW 10 million will have been borrowed on June 30, 2013 (hereinafter “certificate of borrowing”).

C. On November 26, 2015, the Deceased died, and on December 20, 2016, the Defendant, E, and F, who were the offspring of the Deceased, agreed on the division of inherited property that the Defendant independently assumed to succeed to the instant collateral security.

Accordingly, on January 4, 2017, the Defendant completed the registration of the establishment of a collateral security on November 26, 2015 with respect to the registration of the establishment of a collateral security right in the instant case on the grounds of inheritance by consultation and division.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff decided to borrow KRW 10 million from the Deceased, and completed the registration of the establishment of the establishment of the instant neighboring mortgage to secure the above loan claim, but did not receive the above KRW 10 million from the Defendant.

The plaintiff did not receive a loan from the deceased and rescinded a monetary loan contract with the deceased, and there was no fact that the mortgage of this case was established with the intent of physical guarantee. Thus, the defendant is obligated to cancel the registration of establishment of the mortgage of this case to the plaintiff.

B. On January 28, 2013, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 10 million from the Deceased on June 30, 2013 as the due date for repayment. The Plaintiff prepared and executed a certificate of borrowing to the Deceased, and completed the registration of the establishment of the instant nearby mortgage in order to secure the said loan obligation.

The plaintiff is at least a surety's property to secure the obligation of G and H.