beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.07.20 2015가단5054656

근저당권말소

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The fact that there is no dispute over the real estate listed in the [Attachment List owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant real estate”) is completed by the party concerned for the registration of creation of the right to collateral security (hereinafter “mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage (hereinafter “instant contract”) under Article 5098 and December 22, 2012 (it appears that the term “ December 22, 2012,” which is the ground for registration, appears to have been wrong as “the December 22, 2014” (hereinafter “instant contract”): 120,000,000 won, debtor-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. 1) The Plaintiff asserted revocation due to an important fact error (A) from B, and the Plaintiff heard that KRW 100 million would have been deposited in the Plaintiff each year from 2015 to 2021, and paid KRW 300 million to B by allowing the Plaintiff to acquire total right. On December 22, 2014, the Plaintiff should conclude the instant contract in order to secure the Defendant’s price for the goods related to the Defendant’s government textbook supply contract. The Plaintiff concluded the instant contract in the position of the transferee of the government textbook C, in order to secure the price for the goods to be generated after 2015 to the Defendant. The fact of the instant contract was known that the Plaintiff did not conclude the instant contract with the Defendant, but did not enter into the instant contract, which was erroneous, because it was an important motive for mistake, and thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant contract was revoked due to the Defendant’s act of deception was revoked due to the Defendant’s act of deception.

B. Facts that there was no dispute prior to the judgment and Gap.