beta
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2017.04.25 2016가단103286

근저당권말소

Text

1. On March 24, 1994, the defendant applied for each real estate listed in the separate sheet to B, machinery such as the Cheongju District Court's Cheongju Branch Branch.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On January 3, 2007, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against B for the claim for reimbursement under the Seoul Western District Court 2007Kadan463.

On June 22, 2007, the above court rendered a ruling that "B shall pay 155,706,208 won jointly and severally with a gardening company and 75,047,464 won with interest rate of 17% per annum from August 22, 1995 to the date of full payment" and the above ruling became final and conclusive on July 19, 207.

B. On March 24, 1994, the Defendant completed the registration of creation of the right to collateral security (hereinafter “each of the instant real estates”) with respect to each of the real estates listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant real estates”) with the maximum debt amount of KRW 50,00,000, and the debtor B.

C. B, as an insolvent, submitted to this court a letter prepared on May 16, 2016, which was currently pending in the instant lawsuit (hereinafter “instant letter”) as of May 17, 2016.

The main contents of each of the instant notes are as follows: “In the event that the Defendant borrowed KRW 50,00,000 from the Defendant on March 22, 1994 and the repayment is not made until June 30, 2016, there is no objection to the application for auction on the basis of each of the instant mortgages.”

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts, absence of dispute, Gap evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 3-4 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff filed the instant claim in subrogation of insolvent debtor B. The establishment registration of each of the instant neighboring claims of this case was falsely completed in the absence of any secured claim according to the agreement between B and the Defendant, or even if the secured claim actually existed, the said secured claim expired by prescription. Therefore, the Plaintiff, the obligee, in subrogation of the obligor B, sought implementation of each of the instant secured claims against the Defendant. 2) The secured claim of each of the instant secured claims of this case exists.