근저당권말소
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. The defendant filed a subsequent appeal against the plaintiff's defense prior to the merits. However, the plaintiff's defense that the appeal of this case is unlawful since the above subsequent appeal was not attributable to the grounds that the defendant cannot be held responsible.
However, from the beginning, the lawsuit of this case was proceeded with while the documents of lawsuit, including the complaint, were served by public notice, and the original copy of the judgment of the first instance was also served by public notice, and the defendant 2015
8. 6. After inspecting the record on August 13, 2015, the fact that the appeal of this case was filed on August 13, 2015 is clear in the record. Since there is no evidence to prove that the defendant was aware that the judgment of the first instance was served by public notice before August 6, 2015, the above defense cannot be accepted.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da75044, 75051 Decided January 10, 2013, etc.)
A. On September 4, 2001, B filed a lawsuit against B on the following grounds: (a) on September 4, 2001, 201, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against B for the claim for the amount of transfer money with the Seoul Western District Court Decision 2004Gapo13496, which was the maximum debt amount of KRW 20,00,00,000 owned by the Defendant; (b) on September 9, 2004, the Plaintiff was sentenced to a judgment that determined that the Plaintiff would pay to B the amount calculated at the rate of KRW 10,278,260 and KRW 20% per annum from May 1, 2003 to the date of full payment; and (c) the said judgment was finalized at that time.
3) B is currently insolvent. [The fact that there is no dispute over the basis of recognition, entry of Gap Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.]
B. 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion that the establishment registration of the instant neighboring mortgage does not exist, and thus, is null and void of the cause. Even if that is not so, the extinctive prescription of the relevant claim has expired. Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to implement the registration procedure for cancellation of the establishment registration of the said mortgage at the Plaintiff’s request by the subrogation of B. (2) The instant right to collateral security was leased KRW 40,000,000 to B on August 28, 2001 by setting the Defendant as 1% per interest month.