근저당권일부이전등기절차이행
1. The plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim added by this court are all dismissed.
2. After an appeal is filed.
Basic Facts
The reasoning of this Court is that the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to that of the judgment of the court of first instance (1.1.). Thus, this Court cited it as it is in accordance with the main sentence
The reasoning of this part of the judgment on the plaintiff's primary claim is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance (2. A. 1). Thus, this part of the judgment is cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. The reasons for this part of the judgment are the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (2.B.).
3) As to the Plaintiff’s primary claim, the court below’s determination of facts and determination on the Plaintiff’s primary claim is justifiable in light of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court of first instance pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act (the grounds for appeal against the Plaintiff’s primary claim are not significantly different from the allegations in the first instance court, and in light of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court of first instance, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as
(2) On January 24, 2017, the first ground for the Plaintiff’s conjunctive claim (the Plaintiff’s determination as to the obligation under the instant promise was made) (the Defendant’s Intervenor paid KRW 98.5 million on January 24, 2017, on condition that the instant mortgage was cancelled.)
The repayment of this case (hereinafter referred to as “instant repayment”)
According to the instant promise, C agreed to pay 1/2 of the amount to be received as the previous collateral security to the Plaintiff. The Defendant succeeded to C’s position and received the instant collateral security including the Plaintiff’s claim.
Therefore, pursuant to the letter of undertaking of this case, the defendant is obligated to pay 1/2 of the repayment amount of this case 4,9250,000 won and damages for delay.
“Written argument”
However, there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant succeeded to the status under C’s instant undertaking, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s assertion on a different premise is added.