logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2018.02.09 2015가단108810
소유권말소등기
Text

1.With respect to E, as to heading 301 of Songpa-gu Seoul:

A. The defendant A is the Seoul Eastern District Court's Song-dong District Court's office on 2002.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Treasury loan (hereinafter “the loan in this case”) obtained approval for use on December 31, 2001 with four-story neighborhood living facilities and multi-household dwelling facilities, and its actual status is as follows. However, the actual status was as follows: G, Defendant A, Defendant E, Defendant E, and H’s owner registration was completed in the aggregate building ledger as follows:

On the other hand, G, the defendant A, the above E, and H applied for the registration of the preservation of ownership of the loan of this case to the Songpa-gu Seoul District Court on January 9, 2002. On the other hand, as recorded in the attached Table 2, the households of No. 201, which are the 201st floor on the register, are divided into the register No. 201 and No. 301 on the register. The 301 on the register owned by E was changed to No. 302 on the register No. 302 on the register, and the registration of the preservation of ownership was completed as to the loan of this case.

402Nos. 401 (E) 401 (H) 301 (E), 201 (A) 202 (G) 102 (G), 39.29m2 (E), 401(E), 302(E), 301(E), 201(Ga), 201(G), 301(A), 39.29m29 4.71m2 (G parking lot)

B. On August 13, 2008, the Plaintiff lent KRW 192,00,000 to the above E as collateral, and completed the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage of KRW 249,60,000 with respect to the loan No. 302 (No. 301, on the registry, on the registry) owned by E (hereinafter “mortgage No. 301,”) of this case as collateral. Since E delayed the loan obligation, E applied for the auction of real estate on two occasions based on the above collateral security, but the procedure was revoked or dismissed due to the absence of the building registry consistent with each registration.

In this regard, the Plaintiff was unable to perform security due to the occupational negligence of the registry official in charge of the registration of the instant mortgaged house against Korea, resulting in damage equivalent to the amount of loans to E, and the Gwangju District Court.

arrow