beta
(영문) 광주지방법원순천지원 2020.06.24 2019가단7826

근저당권말소

Text

1. With respect to E, with respect to the forest land of 4,364 square meters in the FJ, Jeonnam-gun, and the defendant limited liability company B, with respect to the adjacent registry office of this court, the defendant limited liability company

Reasons

1. In full view of the evidence evidence Nos. 1 and 2 and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against E with the Seoul Central District Court 2008Gaso2640566, Feb. 11, 2009, with the judgment that “E shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount calculated at the rate of 18% per annum from February 24, 2008 to the day of full payment” with respect to KRW 3,199,203 as to KRW 9,650,970, and KRW 3,199,203 as to KRW 18,00,000. The above judgment becomes final and conclusive on March 5, 200; Defendant B shall be deemed as having completed the registration of creation of a mortgage on KRW 4,364,00 (hereinafter “the instant land”); Defendant B’s property, other than the inheritance-mortgage-based maximum debt amount, KRW 197,97,971,209.

2. The claim secured by Defendant B’s No. 1 was extinguished by prescription from July 30, 1997, which was the date of the contract to establish the right of collateral, and from December 10, 1997, G’s claim secured by collateral No. 2 was extinguished by prescription from December 10, 1997, which was the date of the contract to establish the right of collateral security. Accordingly, the claim No. 1 and No. 2 of the instant case were also extinguished according to the appendant nature

Since the secured claim Nos. 1 and 2 of the instant case expired by prescription, Defendant D, the inheritor of Defendant B and G, is obligated to cancel the registration of the establishment of the said mortgage to E, the owner of the instant land.

The plaintiff may seek the procedure for the registration of cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a mortgage in the first and second places on behalf of the defendants, who are insolvent, as the creditor of E.

3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is with merit.