근저당권말소
1. The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. On June 30, 201, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 20,000,000 from the Defendant, and completed the registration of creation of a mortgage on each of the real estates listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant real estates”) with respect to the registration of establishment of a mortgage (hereinafter “registration of collateral security”) around the obligor, the Plaintiff, and the mortgagee of the collective security (hereinafter “registration of collateral security”) on June 30, 201 as the receipt of the maximum debt amount KRW 30,000,000,000 on June 30, 2011.
B. The Plaintiff borrowed KRW 40,00,000 from C, the Defendant’s children, and completed the registration of creation of a collateral security (hereinafter “registration of collateral security”) with respect to each of the instant real property on September 27, 2011, with respect to each of the instant real property as the maximum debt amount of KRW 60,000,000,000, and the Plaintiff and the mortgagee C.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The Plaintiff, which caused the instant collateral security registration, filed a claim for the cancellation of the instant collateral security registration with the Defendant, on the ground that the registration of the instant collateral security was not cancelled, even if the said registration was completed on January 24, 2012 by adding up the amount of KRW 10,000,000 and the amount of KRW 50,000,00 on February 7, 2012.
3. Examining the evidence No. 1-2, evidence No. 2, evidence No. 2, and witness D’s testimony in addition to the overall purport of the pleadings, the fact that the registration of collateral No. 2 was completed on the ground of termination on February 8, 2012, and that D, which operated “E loan”, was a receipt with a content that the Plaintiff was fully paid the loan amounting to KRW 60,000 ( KRW 40,000,000, KRW 20,000) as of February 7, 2012 as the qualification of the Defendant and C’s agent.
However, even though two loans were repaid at the same time, only one of them was discharged from the cancellation of the collateral security. There is no evidence to deem that D was delegated by the Defendant to receive the repayment of the collateral security obligation of this case. According to the evidence No. 1-1 and No. 2, the Plaintiff was each of the instant cases on April 18, 2012.