근저당권말소
1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:
The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) is 150,000.
A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff, who was married with D around April 2004 to May 2004, was divorced. The Defendant married with the Plaintiff’s G on December 23, 1987, but divorced on or around December 2012, 201, and E is the father of the Plaintiff and G.
B. From December 26, 2002 to March 5, 2004, the Defendant determined the interest rate of KRW 50,000,000 to D as 2% per month and lent without setting the due date.
C. With respect to the instant real estate owned by the Plaintiff, the establishment registration of a mortgage holder E, the debtor, the Plaintiff, and the maximum debt amount of KRW 150,000 on the ground of a contract to establish a mortgage (hereinafter “the establishment registration of a mortgage of this case”) as of April 23, 2004 as of February 10, 2004, and the establishment registration of a mortgage amounting to KRW 150,000 on the ground of a contract to establish a mortgage (hereinafter “the establishment registration of a mortgage of this case”) and the receipt of the same registry office as of March 5, 2004, was completed successively due to the contract to establish a mortgage amounting to KRW 150,000 on March 5, 2004. On December 24, 2010, the establishment registration of a mortgage of this case completed in the future E was cancelled on the ground of termination on December 23, 2010.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2 (including branch numbers for those with additional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), part of witness D of the first instance trial, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) D did not repay the debt of KRW KRW 100 million on April 2004 and did not carry the Plaintiff’s certificate of personal seal impression, and the Plaintiff did not have any obligation to compel execution by creditors, and on April 23, 2004, the registration of the establishment of the instant neighboring real estate was completed on April 23, 2004 in the Defendant’s future. As such, the registration of the establishment of the instant neighboring real estate was established falsely for the purpose of evading compulsory execution, and there is no security obligation.
(2) Even if the secured obligation of this case exists, E is the Defendant on June 2006.