근저당권말소
1. The defendant received on April 16, 1996 from the Daejeon District Court Bohyeong registry office with respect to the real estate stated in the attached list to the plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. On March 4, 1996, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of “trade as of February 15, 1996,” with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of “trade as of February 15, 1996.” On the same day, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2 (hereinafter
B. As to each of the instant real property, the Plaintiff and the Defendant registered the establishment of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter referred to as the “registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage”) with respect to the Plaintiff, the mortgagee, the mortgagee, and the maximum debt amount as of April 16, 1996, pursuant to the 595 received on April 16, 199.
[The facts that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, entry of Gap evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. The assertion and judgment
A. 1) The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, who was living together from around 1994, and the Defendant created the instant right to collateral without the Plaintiff’s consent despite the absence of secured claim. In addition, even if there was a secured obligation of the instant right to collateral, this ought to be deemed to have already been extinguished due to the completion of prescription. Therefore, the establishment of the instant right to collateral security should be deemed to have been extinguished due to the completion of prescription. Therefore, the establishment of the instant right to collateral security should be deemed to have commenced with the Plaintiff’s main intent of the Defendant’s assertion, and the instant building was newly constructed, and the Defendant partially paid money.
The defendant did not know the extinctive prescription system while settling a living together with the plaintiff and did not seek the repayment of the secured debt of this case.
B. Determination of 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 a certain limit within a future settlement term for several unspecified claims arising from continuous transactions.