근저당권설정등기말소
1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion was on September 9, 1987, the Defendant completed the registration of the establishment of the creation of the neighboring mortgage of this case, which was owned by the deceased C (hereinafter “the deceased”), with respect to the instant real estate, KRW 98,00,000,00 with the maximum debt amount, and the debtor C and the mortgagee as the Defendant. The secured debt was extinguished by prescription after 29 years from the due date of reimbursement.
Meanwhile, the Plaintiff is a creditor of a loan amounting to KRW 500,000,000 against the Deceased, who applied for a compulsory auction for this case’s real estate as a sex support D by the Daegu District Court. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of the registration of establishment of a mortgage of this case to the Plaintiff
2. Prior to the determination on the merits of the judgment, the previous owner of the real estate on which the right to collateral security was established is entitled to file a claim for the cancellation of the establishment registration of the right to collateral security on the basis of his ownership, and the present owner is entitled to file a claim for the cancellation of the establishment registration of the right to collateral security on the ground of the extinguishment of the obligation to collateral security or the invalidity of the cause thereof. However, there is no evidence to deem that the Plaintiff is the previous owner of the real estate of this case or the current owner, or the party to the said establishment of the right to collateral security. Even according to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed an interested party on the registry having a direct legal interest in the registration of cancellation
Ultimately, the instant lawsuit is unlawful as it is brought by a person without standing as a party.
Furthermore, even if further determination on the merits is made, it is reasonable to view that the statute of limitations for the secured obligation of the establishment registration of a mortgage of this case was interrupted, in light of the following: (a) the description of the evidence Nos. 1-1 through 3, and Nos. 2 through 4, and the witness E’s testimony.