Litigation seeking consent to the cancellation registration of the right to collateral security;

○○ District Court (xaxxx) filed a complaint for the instant case, and the Plaintiff filed a complaint for the instant case.

For the reasons why the registration of establishment of the right to collateral security in the name of Defendant AA was completed in Part, the following:

The same explanation was made as above.

The husband CCC of the Plaintiff had a site for the ○○○ branch of the ○○ Fund.

EE, the location of CCC, required KRW 200 million, and CCC is not sufficient to secure it.

upon introduction by Defendant AA to borrow money from Defendant AA; and Defendant AA.

CCC for the EE’s above loan debt of the EE, the CCC’s real property owned by the Plaintiff as the wife

B made the offer of security to Defendant AA (However, the entry in the certified copy of the register)

I erroneously stated the mortgaged debtor as the plaintiff other than EE).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 4-1 and Eul evidence 4-2, all pleadings

Purport

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. Claim secured by the registration of establishment of the instant mortgage in the name of Defendant AA is substantially gold

Since it is not due to a pre-transaction, there is no secured claim of the above-mortgage (right to collateral security).

whether there was a legal act establishing the secured claim at the time of establishment of the right to collateral security;

The burden of proof is on the part of claiming its existence, but the plaintiff is on the actual part of the secured debt.

There is only a brief argument that it is not a monetary transaction.

B. The registration of creation of the right to collateral security of this case was completed on October 1, 2005, and ten years have passed thereafter.

Therefore, the extinctive prescription of the secured claim of the above right to collateral has expired, and in accordance with the legal principles as to the appendant nature.

The right to collateral security also ceased to exist.

C. As long as the secured claim of the instant right to collateral does not exist or has expired by prescription, the respondent

JAA implements the procedure to cancel the registration of the establishment of the right to collateral security of this case, and the defendant BB

There is an obligation to declare the intention of acceptance with respect to the cancellation.

3. Determination

A. Determination as to the non-existence of secured claim

1) Examining in addition to the entry of No. 2-2 and the purport of the entire pleadings:

Recognizing that EE borrowed 200 million won from Defendant AA on April 21, 2004;

In a lawsuit filed by the Plaintiff against DD in the Seoul Central District Court, “the Plaintiff’s husband” in the complaint

EE, the seat of the CCC, is the introduction of the above CCC, with the funds from Defendant AA.

The apartment of this case owned by the plaintiff as security in order to secure the above loan debt.

was provided.

However, the fact that the debtor in the certified copy of the register is wrong as the plaintiff is stated above.

As seen above, it is examined.

2) According to the above facts, loans of the above KRW 200 million to Defendant AA EE

To secure the apartment of this case, the plaintiff seems to have provided the apartment of this case as security.

3) The Plaintiff’s assertion that the secured claim of the instant right to collateral security does not exist is without merit.

B. Determination on the completion of extinctive prescription

1) The term “when it is possible to exercise rights”, which is the starting point of the extinctive prescription, means the exercise of rights.

(2) If the due date has not yet arrived since there is no legal obstacle;

The extinctive prescription shall not run.

2) The secured claim secured by the registration of creation of the instant mortgage is secured by the above Defendant AA.

The loan of KRW 200 million to EE is a loan of KRW 200,000,000,000,000

According to the record, it can be recognized that the repayment period of the above loan credit is April 20, 2009.

It is reasonable to view that the extinctive prescription of the above bonds will run from April 21, 2009, following the due date.

3) Under a different premise, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

4. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed in its entirety as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

(c)

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

On October 11, 2005, the registration procedure for cancellation of the establishment of a collateral security (hereinafter referred to as the "registration of the establishment of a collateral security (hereinafter referred to as the "registration of the establishment of a collateral security) on the real estate listed in the attached list (hereinafter referred to as the "multi-unit apartment of this case") shall be followed by the ○○ District Court, ○○○ Registry, which was received as Xxx, and ② Defendant BB made an expression of consent on the cancellation registration of the registration of the establishment of the collateral security (hereinafter referred to as the "mortgage

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the instant apartment, and CCC is the Plaintiff’s husband.

B. On October 11, 2005, with respect to the apartment of this case, the registration of the creation of the right to collateral security (the registration of ○○ District Court ○○○○ Registry on October 11, 2015) with the debtor, the mortgagee AA, the maximum debt amount of KRW 200 million was completed.

C. Defendant BB completed each of the registration of seizure on the above-mortgage claims on the grounds of Defendant AA’s delinquency in national tax (○○ District Court ○○○○ Registry on November 25, 2009, and receiptxxxxxxxxxx on June 22, 2012).

D. Meanwhile, Nonparty DD completed the provisional attachment and seizure registration on April 23, 2009 and June 1 of the same year with respect to the above collateral security claims, and the Plaintiff filed an objection against the above DD on December 2, 2010.