근저당권설정등기말소
1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. On August 26, 2013, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff lent KRW 80,00,000 to Nonparty C with interest rate of KRW 24% per annum and maturity of KRW 25% on August 25, 2014. The Plaintiff paid only interest accrued until May 7, 2014 and did not pay the loan principal and interest up to the present day.
C In such a situation, on August 28, 2014, the Defendant, the sole father, entered into a mortgage contract (hereinafter “instant contract”) with respect to the real estate stated in the attached list, which is the only property of the Defendant, and completed the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter “registration of this case”) with the Jeonju District Court No. 109306, Sept. 16, 2014.
Therefore, the contract of this case is a fraudulent act and the defendant is a malicious beneficiary, so the contract of this case shall be revoked, and the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for cancellation registration of the registration of this case due to restitution to its original state.
2. Judgment on the main defense of this case
A. The Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff received a provisional disposition prohibiting disposition against the registration of this case on or around January 22, 2015, and the Plaintiff became aware of the Defendant’s fraudulent act and intent of deception on or around January 22, 2015, and the lawsuit of this case filed one year thereafter is unlawful.
B. 1) A lawsuit for revocation of a fraudulent act is to be brought within one year from the date when the obligee becomes aware of the cause for revocation (Article 406(2) of the Civil Act; “the date when the obligee becomes aware of the cause for revocation”, which is the starting point of the exclusion period, means the date when the obligee becomes aware of the cause for revocation, namely, the date when the obligee becomes aware of the fact that the obligor had committed a fraudulent act while being aware of the fact that the obligee had harmed the obligee, so it is insufficient to simply say that the obligor had conducted a disposal act of the property, and that the legal act is an act prejudicial to the obligee, namely, that the said act is insufficient to satisfy the complete satisfaction of the claim due to the lack of joint security of the claim or the lack of joint security