logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원군산지원 2014.05.22 2013가단54920
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. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against B against the Jeonju District Court 9Da29260, and on August 1, 200, the judgment of August 1, 200 that "B shall pay 440,674,236 won to the plaintiff jointly and severally with the limited liability company and 426,453,866 won per annum from March 6, 1995 to February 15, 1998; 25% per annum from the next day to October 31, 1998; and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment."

B. On October 17, 1994, B entered into a mortgage agreement with the Defendant regarding the obligor B, the mortgagee, the Defendant, and the maximum debt amount of KRW 49,00,000 with respect to the land of this case (hereinafter “the instant real estate”). On October 17, 1994, the Jeonju District Court completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter “the instant collateral security agreement”) with the Defendant on October 17, 1994.

(c) B is currently insolvent.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. At the time of establishing the instant right to collateral security, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant lent money to B at the time of establishing the instant right to collateral security, and there is no financial data about the source of loan. The Defendant did not exercise any right as the right to collateral security against the instant real estate as the right to collateral security, and thus, the instant right to collateral security is null and void because it was either by a

Even if there are claims secured by the right to collateral security of this case

Even if the extinctive prescription has expired, it is sought to cancel the mortgage of this case.

B. As to the judgment on the Defendant’s main defense of safety, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff’s claim for reimbursement against B did not exist any claim against B, which is the preserved right, since the period of the five-year commercial statute of limitations or ten-year civil statute of limitations has expired.

arrow