beta
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2015.01.23 2014나8852

근저당권말소

Text

1. The part concerning the counterclaim claim in the judgment of the court of first instance, including the counterclaim claim expanded from the trial court, is as follows.

Reasons

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. The court's explanation on this part of the facts of recognition is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for adding "(in the case of acquisition and disposal of property, it must be decided by the general meeting through a resolution of the board of directors)" at the end of three (3) of the judgment of the first instance. As such, this part of the reasoning of the judgment is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article

2. Determination as to the principal lawsuit

A. The defendant's judgment on the ground of the safety objection of the plaintiff clan stated that the lawsuit of this case of the plaintiff clan is unlawful since there is no resolution of the general assembly of the plaintiff clan concerning the filing of the lawsuit of this case since the plaintiff clan did not have a resolution of the general assembly of the plaintiff clan as to the filing of the lawsuit of this case.

However, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence No. 15, since it is recognized that the plaintiff clan held a general meeting on October 13, 2013 and completed the ratification resolution by making it an agenda item No. 1, the defendant's defense against the safety of the defendant is without merit.

B. According to the facts acknowledged prior to the determination on the merits, the act of offering the forest land of this case owned by the plaintiff clan as collateral to the defendant is stipulated as "matters concerning the acquisition and disposition of fundamental property during the clan, etc., and must be resolved by the general meeting following the resolution of the board of directors of the plaintiff clan pursuant to Article 13 (1) of the articles of this case. There is no evidence to acknowledge that the act of offering the forest land of this case was subject to the resolution of the board of directors of the plaintiff clan with respect to the provision of the forest land of this case. Furthermore, even though the general meeting of the plaintiff clan with respect to the provision of the forest land of this case was not held, the contract for establishing collateral security was prepared and completed the establishment registration of the establishment of the mortgage in the defendant's name based thereon. Thus,