저당권등기말소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On May 11, 2004, the Plaintiff obtained a loan from the Defendant, and as a security, completed the registration of establishment of the neighboring establishment as No. 38933 on May 11, 2004 to the Defendant as to each real estate listed in the attached list (1) of the attached list.
B. C obtained a loan from the Defendant on June 13, 2007. The Plaintiff completed the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter referred to as the “registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage of this case”) under the 68325 receipt of June 13, 2007, as to each real estate listed in the separate list (2) as security for the above loan debt of C, from the Defendant, the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage of this case was completed on June 13, 2007.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including each number in the case of additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. Since D, who had worked as the regular business of the Defendant alleged by the Plaintiff, made a false statement to the Plaintiff that “for the purpose of covering the Defendant’s losses by paying off the Defendant’s overdue loans with the Defendant’s loans in lieu of the Defendant’s overdue loans, the Plaintiff shall prepare a loan document to obtain a loan with the Defendant’s funds for the operation of the gas station operated by his own type E, and its members received a loan from the Defendant by providing the Plaintiff as collateral, and the Defendant promised to cancel the registration of the establishment of the instant mortgage to the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to cancel the registration of the establishment of the instant mortgage to the Plaintiff.
B. The Plaintiff concluded a loan agreement with D solely based on the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, and set up a collateral security on the instant real estate.
It is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant promised to cancel the registration of the establishment of a mortgage of this case to the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.
3. Conclusion, the plaintiff .