근저당권말소
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. The court's explanation concerning the instant case is based on Paragraph 2 B of the first instance court's decision.
Along with the addition of the following judgments as to the new arguments in the defendant's trial as follows, it is the reason for the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Each entry in the judgment of the court of first instance (Paragraph 2 (b) of the reasons for the judgment) 1. b. 1. 2. 3. 4 through 7. 2. 2.
According to the above, it is recognized that the Defendant additionally transferred KRW 400 million to C from December 24, 2010 to January 25, 2011 after the establishment of the instant right to collateral security and superficies (the Defendant asserted that the Defendant additionally lent KRW 300 million to C on March 11, 2004, but it is insufficient to recognize that the amount deposited on the same day is the Defendant’s lending of the money deposited on the same day by only the evidence of subparagraphs B(1) to C, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise, the above assertion is rejected.
However, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the above facts, ① the maximum debt amount of the instant right to collateral security is KRW 380,000,000, and the loan amount is ordinarily set up with the limit of KRW 300,000,000, ② the fact that the right to collateral security does not guarantee all the obligations between the creditor and the debtor; ③ the above money remitted after a considerable period of 10 years or more from the establishment of the instant right to collateral security is a loan secured by the instant right to collateral security; however, it is inevitable to deem that the secured debt of the instant right to collateral security is limited to the Defendant’s loan as of August 26, 197 and the interest or delay damages thereon.
However, the loan claim of KRW 300 million is presumed to have been established on August 1997, which is the date establishing the mortgage of this case presumed to have been established.