근저당권설정등기 말소회복등기청구의 소
1. On March 20, 2013, the Defendant received on March 20, 201 from the Suwon District Court in relation to the real estate stated in the attached list to the Plaintiff.
1. On December 12, 2012, the Plaintiff determined that the cause of the claim was KRW 50 million to the Defendant, the interest rate of KRW 9.5% per annum, and the due date of payment on June 15, 2013 (hereinafter “instant loan for consumption”).
On January 15, 2013, the Defendant issued a registration of establishment of a collateral (hereinafter referred to as the “registration of a collateral”) with respect to the real estate listed in the separate list as collateral for the loan for consumption of this case (hereinafter referred to as the “real estate of this case”) by the Suwon District Court No. 6505, the registration office of Suwon District Court received on January 15, 2013.
C, the representative director of the Defendant, forged the Plaintiff’s letter of delegation and the application for cancellation of the registration of the instant right to collateral security, which is necessary for the cancellation of the registration of the instant right to collateral security, and submitted to the public official of Suwon District Court on March 20, 2014 and completed the registration of cancellation of the instant registration of collateral security (hereinafter “registration of cancellation”).
[Reasons for recognition] According to the above facts, the cancellation registration of this case is invalid without any ground. Thus, the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for recovery registration of mortgage registration of this case to the plaintiff.
2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. (1) As to the assertion that the loan for consumption in this case was a false conspiracy, the Plaintiff prepared a contract for the loan for consumption in this case (A1) in which the Plaintiff alleged that the loan for consumption in this case was a false conspiracy with D’s representative director D and actually invested money to D while lending money to the Defendant, which is not effective as a false conspiracy, and the registration of the mortgage in this case
(2) According to the judgment below Gap 1, Eul 2, and 3, D had D’s act of fund-raising without delay, and the plaintiff was identified as the victim. While the deposit account under the loan agreement of this case is the above company, it can be said that the borrower of the loan for consumption and the user of the money can be different. Thus, it is so decided as above.