채무부존재 및 근저당말소등기 청구
1. There is no obligation based on the Plaintiff’s loan certificate as of February 25, 2009 and the loan certificate as of April 25, 2009 against the Defendant.
1. On February 25, 2009 and April 25, 2009, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 3,000,000, and KRW 2,000,000 from the Defendant, and on December 18, 2009, the Plaintiff created a collective security (hereinafter “instant collective security”) with regard to real estate stated in the attached list, with the Changwon District Court’s Cream support on December 18, 2009, as the maximum debt amount of KRW 12,00,000,000, as the Defendant’s maximum debt amount of KRW 40579, Dec. 18, 2009.
The Plaintiff borrowed KRW 240,760,000 on February 25, 2009 after deducting KRW 240,000 as the interest rate, and paid KRW 2,760,000 on March 25, 2009, after deducting KRW 140,000 as the interest rate, and received KRW 1,860,000 on April 25, 2009 after deducting KRW 140,000 as the interest rate, from April 25, 2009. From April 25, 2009, the Plaintiff decided to reduce the monthly interest rate of KRW 5,000,000 from KRW 380,00 to KRW 350,000 from KRW 350,00,00 to KRW 3505,00 from April 25, 2009, and paid to the Finance Users for more than five months from April 201 to May 25, 2001.
Nevertheless, on August 22, 2011, the Defendant received a decision to commence voluntary auction based on the instant mortgage. The Plaintiff paid KRW 5,00,000,000, which is equivalent to the leased principal, even though the unpaid principal would not be deducted from the principal when the Plaintiff deducted the interest paid in excess from the principal, the Defendant deposited the entire amount of KRW 1,01,00,000 corresponding to the leased principal into the Defendant’s account on December 16, 201 and December 23, 2011, and paid KRW 50,000,000 at the Defendant’s request to deposit the expenses incurred in the auction.
Accordingly, the Defendant withdrawn the application for voluntary auction on May 16, 2012, but instead, received a voluntary decision on July 5, 2013 on the commencement of auction on the ground that the registration of the establishment of the mortgage of the instant case remains without cancelling the registration.
Therefore, the Plaintiff sought confirmation that the Plaintiff’s loan obligation against the Defendant is nonexistent due to all repayment.