(영문) 대전고등법원 2008. 1. 16. 선고 2007나6442 판결[근저당권설정등기말소][미간행]
Plaintiff (Attorney Lee Dong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)
Han Bank Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Shin & Kim, Attorneys Yellow-chul et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant
November 14, 2007
Daejeon District Court Decision 2006Gahap13074 Decided June 7, 2007
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant will implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage completed on December 5, 1983 by the Daejeon District Court, Daejeon District Court, Daejeon Registry, which was completed on December 5, 1983 as of the real estate stated in the attached list, and by the registration of cancellation of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage completed on January 9, 1984 by the
1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;
The reasons why this Court shall state on this case are the same as that of the judgment of the first instance except for the addition of the following matters, and thus, it shall accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act (attached Form).
2. The further determination of this Court
In light of the relationship between Pungcheon-do and South Korea, which was the debtor at the time of the establishment of the instant right to collateral security, it is difficult to regard the instant right to collateral security as a collateral to secure only a specific obligation, unlike that specified in the contract form, even though it is difficult to regard the instant right to collateral security as a collateral to secure only a specific obligation, on the contrary, it does not guarantee the obligation of South Korea's land newly created after the incorporation into South Korea.
However, there is no dispute between the parties that the obligations of general loans have been fully extinguished among the obligations of windmany land that occurred prior to the merger of windmany land into South Korea.
However, in full view of the purport of the argument in Eul evidence 8-1, it can be recognized that the foreign currency payment guarantee debt of US$ 4,600,000 existed at the time of the merger into South Korea, and the above foreign currency payment guarantee debt of this case shall also be included in the secured debt of this case. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case cannot be accepted (the plaintiff clearly expressed that it is not the claim for cancellation of the mortgage of this case on the condition of the repayment of remaining debt at the first hearing of the court of first instance).
3. Conclusion
Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.
Judge Lee Jong-soo (Presiding Judge)