근저당권설정등기말소
1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) against the instant principal lawsuit and counterclaim are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be the principal lawsuit.
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment of the court of first instance to the plaintiff’s assertion as follows. Thus, this is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Judgment of the court below
A. As to the developments leading up to the establishment of the instant mortgage, the Plaintiff, upon purchasing the instant real estate from C, intended to take over the secured debt of the instant mortgage, but it refers to the ratio of annual repayment of the principal and interest of the debt to the total amount of regulatory income of DTS (total debt repayment ratio). However, in the event of a housing mortgage loan, the Plaintiff is a system to prevent the reckless loan practices of financial institutions and the debtor from repaying the debtor’s bad debt by limiting the repayment amount
As a result, C was unable to assume the obligation due to assumption of the obligation, it asserts that C created the instant right to collateral security by setting the amount to be borne by the interest during a year as three million won in order to secure the claim for reimbursement that can be exercised by the Plaintiff if he/she becomes to pay the interest on the loan, and setting the maximum debt amount as 15 million won (=3 million won x 5 years) on the premise that it shall be guaranteed for five years.
However, according to the statement in Eul evidence No. 1, while entering into a mortgage contract on October 29, 2007 with the defendant, the plaintiff may recognize the fact that the plaintiff set the maximum debt amount of 15 million won and the payment period of 15 million won until July 25, 2012 and the interest rate of 1% until July 25, 2012. It seems to be premised on the fact that the plaintiff had a conclusive debt against the defendant.
According to the plaintiff's assertion, if the plaintiff pays interest on the secured obligation of the instant right to collateral (in fact, the plaintiff did not bear any obligation to C). Thus, the secured obligation of the instant right to collateral security does not occur, and it is unclear whether the future arises or not.