beta
(영문) 부산지방법원 2019.10.29 2019가단313554

근저당권말소

Text

1. The Plaintiff, among each real estate listed in the separate sheet, Defendant C’s share 3/9, Defendant D, E, and F, respectively, 2/9.

Reasons

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. Each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each real estate of this case”) was originally registered as the owner of Nonparty G.

On May 16, 191, the Plaintiff was the spouse of Nonparty G, and completed the registration of ownership transfer concerning each of the instant real estate due to the sale as of April 26, 1991, the Busan District Court’s Busan District Court’s receipt No. 2684, Busan District Court’s receipt.

As to each of the instant real estate in Busan District Court, Busan District Court Decision 2865, May 16, 1991, completed the registration of creation of a mortgage near the debtor, the mortgagee H, the maximum debt amount of 25,000,000 (hereinafter referred to as the “registration of creation of a mortgage near the instant case”). However, the registration of establishment of a mortgage transfer to the non-party I (hereinafter referred to as the “the deceased”) was completed due to the transfer on January 10, 1994.

Article 22(1) of the Civil Act provides that “The deceased shall submit a written complaint against H and J on January 28, 1994 on the ground that the establishment registration of a mortgage in the instant case was made by deception of the existing mortgagee who transferred the right to collateral security to the deceased.”

Applicant, while the deceased died on December 22, 1994, the Defendants inherited the deceased’s property.

[Ground of recognition] Defendant C, E: Defendant D, F: The absence of dispute, Gap evidence, Gap evidence Nos. 3, Gap evidence Nos. 4-1, 2, and 3; the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above facts, the secured claim of the establishment of a mortgage of this case was completed on May 16, 191, which was the date of conclusion of the contract to establish a mortgage, or on January 1, 1994 at least ten years after each of the 10 years elapsed from May 16, 2001 or around January 2004, and the mortgage of this case was also extinguished retroactively to the initial date, based on the appendant nature of the security right.

Therefore, unless there are other circumstances, the Defendants are concerned.