근저당권말소
1. The part of the first instance judgment against the Defendants shall be revoked.
2. All of the Plaintiff’s claims against the Defendants.
1. The grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance regarding this case are as follows, with the exception of (1) of Article 3 (3) (2) of the judgment of the court of first instance (2) of the judgment of the court of first instance, and (2) of the judgment of the court of first instance, with the exception of deletion of paragraph (4) (2) of the judgment of the court of first instance (21 to 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance).
Therefore, it is accepted by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act as it is.
[Attachment] Section 3-C of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (20 pages 8 through 7 of the judgment) shall be as follows.
Judgment
(1) The right to collateral security is a mortgage created by setting only the maximum amount of the debt to be secured and reserving the determination of the debt in the future, which is established with a view to securing a certain range of unspecified claims arising from a continuous transaction in the future.
Therefore, separate from the act of establishing a right to collateral security, there must be a legal act establishing a secured claim of the right to collateral security, and the burden of proof as to whether there was a legal act establishing a secured claim of the right to collateral security at the time of establishment of the right to collateral security has been
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da72070, Dec. 24, 2009). Moreover, even if a claim secured by the right to collateral security has been seized, if no secured claim by the right to collateral security exists, the seizure order is null and void.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da107408, Apr. 28, 2011). However, in cases where the secured claim of the right to collateral security arising out of a legal relationship formed by a false representation that has been conspired was provisionally seized, the provisional attachment right holder has a new legal interest based on the false representation, and thus constitutes a third party under Article 108(2) of the Civil Act.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Da70041, May 28, 2004). In addition, a third party is presumed to have been in good faith, barring any special circumstance, and thus, the third party is presumed to have been in bad faith. Therefore, the burden of proving and proving that the third party is in bad faith