근저당권말소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. On May 10, 2013, the Plaintiff: (a) borrowed KRW 100,000,000 from the Defendant (hereinafter “the instant loan”); (b) agreed on the same day to set up a collateral security on the attached list (hereinafter “each of the instant real property”) with respect to the Defendant regarding the real property indicated in the attached list (hereinafter “each of the instant real property”).
B. According to the above agreement, on May 14, 2013, the registration and receipt of the registration of the branch court of Busan District Court with respect to each of the instant real estate, the registration of the establishment of a mortgage (hereinafter “the establishment of a mortgage of this case”) was completed on the basis of the maximum debt amount of 130,000,000 won, the debtor, the plaintiff and the mortgagee, and the defendant of the mortgagee.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry in Gap evidence 1 and 2 (including provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion, upon the Defendant’s request, remitted KRW 123,046,410 to the Defendant’s wife C’s account from May 13, 2013 to September 22, 2017, and partly repaid the instant loan.
On June 26, 2019, the Plaintiff deposited the remainder of KRW 6,953,590, which remains after subtracting the repayment amount from the maximum debt amount of KRW 130,000,000,00.
Therefore, inasmuch as the instant loan debt, which is the secured debt of the establishment registration of the instant neighboring mortgage, was fully repaid on June 26, 2019, the Defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for cancellation of the establishment registration of the said neighboring mortgage to the Plaintiff.
B. The Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to repay the instant loan debt to the account in the name of C, the spouse, and thus, the relevant remittance cannot be deemed to have been appropriated for the instant loan debt.
Furthermore, the effect of the deposit for repayment is invalid because the deposit for repayment falls short of the loan repayment amount.
Therefore, the plaintiff cannot respond to the request.
3. According to the reasoning of the judgment and evidence No. 2, the Plaintiff may be found to have remitted money from May 13, 2013 to September 22, 2017 to the Defendant’s account under the Defendant’s wife C.
However, the defendant is in this case.