채무인수등
1. Of the Plaintiff’s primary claim, the registration of the establishment of mortgage and the registration of the modification are the ancillary claim.
1. Facts on the premise for judgment;
A. On March 26, 2012, the Plaintiff was the applicant for the loan, and the Defendant Company’s “application for the loan of the loan of the loan of the loan of the loan” written by each of the loan holders.
According to the above written application, the Defendant Company loaned KRW 9.7 million to the Plaintiff at the expense of purchasing the instant vehicle, but the Plaintiff is obliged to pay the principal and interest of the said loan in installments over 36 months.
B. Accordingly, on March 26, 2012, the Defendant Company directly paid the above loans to the company selling the second and second companies, and the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer of the instant vehicle was completed in the name of the Plaintiff.
In addition, the registration of the mortgage of this case was completed on the same day with the amount of 4850,000 won for the defendant company, the mortgagee, the debtor, and the debtor.
C. After that, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking the acquisition of transfer of ownership registration with the Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2013Da20929 on the ground that “Defendant B made an agreement to repay the above loan and transfer the ownership of the said motor vehicle and not implement it.”
In addition, on November 15, 2013, the above court rendered a favorable judgment and completed the procedure for the registration of the transfer of ownership in the future of the above defendant.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including each number in case of additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The Plaintiff asserted the cause of the claim and the summary of the purport of the claim, upon Defendant B’s request, was the owner in the register of automobiles at a cycle of lending the name of the instant automobile to be purchased and used by him. However, the obligation of loans related to the said automobile, as a matter of course, was borne by the said Defendant. The Defendant Company, the creditor, well known the above circumstances and consented or approved it.
In addition, the Plaintiff was unaware of the fact that the Defendant Company registered the mortgage of this case with respect to the above loan obligations.
Therefore, it is around.