beta
(영문) 춘천지방법원속초지원 2017.09.05 2016가단3166

근저당권말소

Text

1. The Defendant shall pay KRW 23,609,748 from the Plaintiff and KRW 13,00,000 among them, from December 31, 2016 to the date of full payment.

Reasons

1. On July 28, 2011, the Plaintiff completed the registration of the creation of a collateral security (hereinafter “instant collateral security”) on the real estate listed in the attached list owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant real estate”) with respect to the Defendant, as indicated in the attached list owned by the Plaintiff, with respect to the maximum debt amount of KRW 15,000,000,000, the debtor C (the mother of the Plaintiff), the obligor C (the Plaintiff), and

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. On July 27, 2011, the Plaintiff’s assertion C borrowed KRW 11,00,000 from the Defendant, and the Plaintiff, as a security for the loan obligation, set up the instant collateral security against the Defendant.

After that, C repaid to the Defendant the sum of KRW 11,00,000 on September 13, 2013, KRW 2,000,000 on March 4, 2015, KRW 4,000,000 on March 5, 2015, and KRW 11,00,000 on December 30, 2016.

Therefore, since the secured debt of the instant right to collateral security has ceased to exist by repayment, the Defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of the registration of establishment of the instant right to collateral security.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that the secured debt of the instant right to collateral security was either solely or jointly liable to the Defendant, which is currently or will be borne by C, and C, as the Defendant borrowed the total of KRW 15,000,000,000, and the total of KRW 15,000,000,000 on July 28, 201, and KRW 30,000,000 on August 9, 201, with interest rate of KRW 30,00,00,000, the Defendant’s loan obligation is the secured debt of the instant right to collateral security, and the loan obligation still remains 26,838,834,00 as of December 30, 2016.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is without merit.

3. Determination

A. In full view of the purport of the argument in the statement of evidence No. 6 No. 1 B regarding the confirmation of the secured obligation of the instant case, the instant mortgage contract is concluded without setting the term of existence in order to secure the Defendant’s current or future obligations or obligations, or all obligations arising from bills, checks, or commercial transactions.