피담보채권의 소멸시효가 중단되었다는 점을 인정하기 어려움[국패]
It is difficult to recognize that the extinctive prescription of the secured claim is suspended.
It is difficult to recognize that the initial date of extinctive prescription of claims secured by a right to collateral security is different from the date on which the plaintiff asserted or suspended extinctive prescription
Article 214 of the Civil Code, Claim for Removal and Prevention of Disturbance against Article 214
2016da6866 Requests for the cancellation of registration of creation of collateral security
The two AA
Republic of Korea and one other
December 8, 2016
January 12, 2017
1. On June 24, 2004, the Cheongju District Court Cheongju District Court Cheongju District Court see the Plaintiff’s registration procedure for cancellation on June 24, 2014, with respect to the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage completed under No. 4752, which was completed on June 24, 2004.
2. The defendant Republic of Korea shall express its intention of consent with respect to the cancellation of the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage mentioned in paragraph (1).
3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Defendants.
Cheong-gu Office
The same shall apply to the order.
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
In full view of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2's written evidence, it is acknowledged that there is the same facts as the reasons for the claim in the separate sheet. According to the above facts, the defendants are liable to perform each of the items in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Disposition to the plaintiff, unless there are any special circumstances.
2. Judgment on the assertion by Defendant Republic of Korea
A. On this point, Defendant Republic of Korea asserts to the effect that, in the case of the right to collateral security (hereinafter referred to as the “right to collateral security”) set forth in the Disposition No. 1, the extinctive prescription of the right to collateral security shall not run on the basis of the date of establishment of the right to collateral security, but if there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and Defendant BB on the due date, the extinctive prescription shall run from that time, and it may not be readily concluded that the extinctive prescription has been interrupted
B. In light of the following, even if all the evidence submitted by the Defendant in Korea were to be comprehensively assessed, it is insufficient to recognize that the starting date of extinctive prescription of the secured claim of this case is different from the date of the Plaintiff’s assertion, or that the extinctive prescription of the above secured claim has been suspended, so the above Defendant’
3. Conclusion
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is with merit, and all of them are accepted, and it is so decided as per Disposition.