(영문) 창원지방법원밀양지원 2016.05.24 2015가단4315

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 창원지방법원밀양지원 2016.05.24 2015가단4315

근저당권말소

Text

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. This Court shall have jurisdiction over cases of filing an application for stay of enforcement with this Court 2015 Chicago31.

Reasons

Plaintiff’s assertion

Plaintiff

Around February 8, 2010, Nonparty B purchased each of the instant real estate from Nonparty C.

On March 2010, the Plaintiff obtained a loan of KRW 99 million from the Defendant to secure the said loan obligation. On March 26, 2010, C completed the registration of creation of a mortgage on each of the instant real estate as stated in the purport of the claim that KRW 128,700,000 for the obligee, the obligor, and the maximum debt amount.

B completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to each of the instant real estate on April 1, 2010, and thereafter the Plaintiff repaid all of the above loan obligations.

Therefore, since the above collateral obligation was extinguished, the defendant is obligated to cancel the registration of establishment of the above collateral to the plaintiff.

The previous owner of a real estate on which the judgment of ex officio on the eligibility of a party is established is based on the contract to establish a mortgage, and the present owner is entitled to file a claim for the cancellation of the registration of establishment of a mortgage on the ground of the extinction of each secured obligation or the invalidity of the cause. However, a previous owner of a real estate or a present owner, or a debtor with respect to the secured obligation which is not a party under the contract to establish a mortgage cannot be deemed to be an interested party on the registry having a direct legal interest in the registration of cancellation of the registration of establishment

On the other hand, even according to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the current owner of each of the instant real estate is B, and the former owner is also C, and the Plaintiff is merely a debtor with respect to the secured debt of the right to collateral security, and thus, the Plaintiff is not eligible to file a claim for cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the right to collateral security.

In conclusion, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is unlawful and thus, it is so decided as per Disposition.

유사 판례

-대전지법 2008. 9. 5. 선고 2007가단30192 판결

-서울동부지방법원 2019.09.19 2019가단5124

-대구지방법원포항지원 2019.06.18 2019가단911

-광주지방법원순천지원 2015.10.14 2014가단22837

-대전지방법원 2020.04.28 2019가단7829