근저당권설정등기말소
1. On July 1, 2003, the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 7,523,750 from the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and KRW 5,023,750 among them.
1. The premise is that a de facto marital relationship with the Defendant (hereinafter “the Defendant husband”) is a private relationship with the Plaintiff. On August 29, 2006, the Plaintiff established and rendered a collateral security (hereinafter “instant collateral security”) on the instant land inherited and donated to the Defendant based on the contract establishing a contract to establish the maximum debt amount on the same day.
[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings]
2. Determination on the main claim
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is as follows: “The Plaintiff, who was in bad credit standing at the time, was apprehended to be subject to compulsory execution from other creditors, and was established a mortgage in this case by means of false conspiracy with the Defendant, and thus, sought cancellation of the registration of creation of a mortgage in this case against the Defendant. Even if there was an investment money and a loan, as alleged by the Defendant, even if there was an obligation guaranteed, as the said investment money and the loan were fully repaid and extinguished, the registration of creation of a mortgage in the
B. In determining the primary assertion, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the collateral obligation of the instant case was established by false conspiracy despite the absence of the initial collateral obligation.
Therefore, the plaintiff's main argument is without merit.
C. In full view of the respective descriptions of the evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 10 (including each number) and the overall purport of the pleading, the following facts can be acknowledged.
On December 2002, the Plaintiff was awarded a successful bid for the Seo-gu Daejeon E-Ba (hereinafter “instant loan”). In order to create the balance of the instant loan, the Plaintiff borrowed a loan of KRW 5,500,000 from the G Union upon request of the Defendant’s husband, and borrowed the mother and child balance of KRW 5,500,000 from the Defendant, and borrowed from the Defendant, the Plaintiff’s wife’s name “5,00,000 won as of December 17, 2002” is 15% per annum.