(영문) 대구지방법원포항지원 2015.08.25 2015가단210

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) 대구지방법원포항지원 2015.08.25 2015가단210

근저당권말소

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On February 19, 2009, the Plaintiff filed a payment order against B with the Daegu District Court 2009Guj2188, and on February 19, 2009, “B shall pay to the Plaintiff 34,178,270 won and 15,259,187 won among them at the rate of 25% per annum from February 12, 2009 to the date of full payment, and 31,460 won for demand procedure.” The said payment order was finalized on June 9, 2009.

B. Meanwhile, with respect to the real estate listed in the attached list (hereinafter “the instant real estate”), B completed the registration of creation of a mortgage over the maximum debt amount of KRW 70 million, which was based on the contract concluded on September 11, 2001 by the Daegu District Court Branch No. 59026, Sept. 11, 2001, and completed the registration of creation of a mortgage over the maximum debt amount of KRW 60 million, which was based on the contract concluded on September 26, 2003 by the above court No. 79678, Sept. 26, 2003.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant mortgage contract” by referring to the foregoing contract, and referring to the “mortgage creation registration of the instant neighboring mortgage” by referring to the “mortgage establishment registration of the instant neighboring mortgage”). 【The basis for recognition】 the fact that there is no dispute, the entries in the evidence Nos. 2 and 3 (including the serial number, hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. 1) The plaintiff asserts that the mortgage contract of this case is null and void as a false declaration of conspiracy. 2) The plaintiff argues that the mortgage contract of this case is invalid as a false declaration of conspiracy.

Rather, according to the statements in Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 4, it can be acknowledged that Eul borrowed a sum of KRW 130 million from the defendant from September 2001 to September 2003 (hereinafter "the loan of this case"), and Eul concluded the mortgage contract of this case with the defendant in order to secure the above loan of this case, and that Eul completed the registration of establishment of mortgage of this case to the defendant.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

B. Determination 1 on the assertion on the extinction of prescription is the secured claim of the instant mortgage.

유사 판례

-대구지방법원영덕지원 2017.12.19 2017가단457

-대구지방법원 영덕지원 2017.04.25 2016가단2043

-서울동부지방법원 2016.09.21 2015가단127361

-대전지방법원천안지원 2013.12.13 2013가합100616

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2014.08.29 2014가단9956