손해배상(기)
1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning the principal action, including the primary claim added at the trial is as follows.
Basic Facts
On October 18, 2006, the Plaintiff lent KRW 10,000,00 to the Defendant. The Plaintiff received a promissory note from the Defendant stating a face value of KRW 10,00,000,000 from the date of issuance, October 18, 2006, the date of payment, January 18, 2007, the issuer, and the payee.
On January 15, 2009, the Plaintiff lent KRW 350,000,00 to C. On April 3, 2009, the Plaintiff completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter “registration of creation of a mortgage”) with respect to the land owned D, which is KRW 1,735,00 square meters prior to Gwangju E (hereinafter “instant land”) owned by the mortgagee, the debtor, and the maximum debt amount of KRW 450,000,00,000.
C around May 2009, upon cancelling the registration of establishment of the instant neighboring mortgage in order to enable the Plaintiff to sell the instant land to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff would pay KRW 150,000 out of its borrowed money as the sale price, and requested the cancellation of the said right to collateral security. The Plaintiff consented thereto.
On May 7, 2009, the Plaintiff: (a) transferred the instant land to C in the U.S.; (b) the Plaintiff contacted the Defendant when the instant land was sold, and (c) the Defendant would sell the instant land and pay KRW 150,000,00 to the Defendant; and (c) the Plaintiff would have issued a certificate of termination, power of attorney, and certificate of personal seal necessary for the cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the instant neighboring mortgage, while issuing a certificate of termination, power of attorney, and certificate of personal seal necessary for the cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the instant neighboring mortgage.
The plaintiff left the Republic of Korea on May 14, 2009.
The Defendant had sold the instant land from C on May 20, 209, and sought an application for cancellation registration with a telephone call to cancel the registration of the establishment of the instant neighboring land. However, there was no registration certificate of the instant land (the Defendant considered to have been in custody, but the Plaintiff was actually in custody).
Accordingly, the defendant lost the certificate of registration of the land of this case.