beta
(영문) 광주지방법원 2015.04.08 2014가단523546

근저당권말소

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On October 18, 2002, the Korea Saemaul Savings Depository loaned KRW 195,00,000 to A, and thereafter, the said safe transferred the above loan to the Plaintiff and notified A of the transfer of the claim.

B. On October 21, 2002, the Defendant entered into a mortgage agreement of KRW 260,000,000 per annum (the interest rate shall be paid every one month from the date of the commencement of the loan), set and extended on October 21, 2004 (hereinafter “the loan in this case”) with A to secure the above loan claims, and entered into a mortgage agreement of KRW 169,000,000 with respect to the real estate stated in the separate sheet (1) of the attached list owned by A, and the mortgage agreement of KRW 169,00,000 with respect to the real estate stated in the separate sheet (2), and completed the establishment of a mortgage agreement of KRW 169,00,000 with respect to each claim stated in the separate sheet (2).

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant right to collateral security”) C.

A did not pay the interest on the instant loan interest after August 30, 2003.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 and 2, Gap evidence 4-1, 2, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff alleged by the parties that he did not pay the interest that A shall pay prior to the expiration date of the loan period, thereby losing the benefit of September 30, 2003, which was 1 month after the last payment date of the interest, and accordingly, that the loan claim of this case expired by the lapse of 10 years from that date.

In this regard, although the Defendant did not pay interest prior to the expiration date of the loan period, the Defendant did not lose the benefit of time due to the Defendant’s failure to notify the Defendant of the loss of the term due, the extinctive prescription of the loan claim of this case shall run from the expiration date

3. The key issue of the instant case is whether A has lost the benefit of time due to delay in payment of interest, as alleged by the Plaintiff.

A special contract for the loss of term benefit shall be made in accordance with its contents.