beta
(영문) 광주지방법원목포지원 2020.11.25 2020가단53195

근저당권말소

Text

The defendant shall receive to B, on August 23, 2007, machinery such as the Gwangju District Court's Maritime Court's Maritime Branch with respect to the area of 1,719 square meters prior to Jeonnam-gun.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. As to the 1,719 square meters (hereinafter “the instant real estate”), prior to the Seoul-Gun, Jeonnam-gun, B, the Defendant of the maximum debt amount of 80,000,000 won on August 23, 2007, and the debtor B and the mortgagee of the right to collateral security (hereinafter “instant collateral security”) on August 22, 2007, the registration of creation of the right to collateral security (hereinafter “instant collateral security”) was completed.

B. The Korea Credit Guarantee Fund filed an application for a payment order with the Gwangju District Court Decision No. 201j1954 against B for the payment order, and the court held that “B shall pay to the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund 23,229,464 won and 23,229,400 won with 15% per annum from June 30, 201 to September 26, 2011 (the delivery date of the original payment order) and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment (hereinafter “instant payment order”).” The instant payment order was finalized on October 11, 201.

C. On May 30, 2019, the Plaintiff received succession execution clause based on the instant payment order as a successor to a claim based on the instant payment order.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. Since the secured debt of the instant claim asserted by the Plaintiff did not exist or disappeared after repayment, the establishment registration of the instant collateral should be cancelled.

Accordingly, the plaintiff, as the creditor of B, seeks from the defendant on behalf of B, to implement the registration procedure for cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the creation of the neighboring mortgage of this case.

B. The defendant alleged that he lent KRW 80 million to B on August 22, 2007, and in order to secure the above loan obligations against the defendant, the right to collateral security of this case was established with the above loan obligations on the real estate owned by B as the secured claim.

Ultimately, the secured claim of the instant right to collateral security exists, and there is no fact of repayment. Therefore, the instant right to collateral security.