logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 성남지원 2018.01.16 2017가단216195
근저당권말소
Text

1. The defendant shall accept the registration of Daejeon District Court and April 17, 2008 with respect to the real estate stated in the attached list to the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On April 15, 2008, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet on the same day (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

B. On April 17, 2008, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 20 million from C on the same day as the collateral, and set up a maximum debt amount of KRW 50 million with respect to the instant real estate, and a collateral security (hereinafter “mortgage security”).

Since then, the Plaintiff paid 10 million won out of the above loan debt to C, and the secured debt of the instant right to collateral security remains in KRW 10 million.

C. On the other hand, on November 17, 2014, C borrowed KRW 10 million from E (the defendant's attorney), the father of the defendant, and C transferred the secured debt of the instant right to collateral security to the defendant, who is his father, in order to secure the debt of D, and on November 18, 2014, C completed additional registration of collateral security to the defendant on November 18, 2014.

On May 29, 2015, D and E drafted a written confirmation containing the purport of “E was repaid all the secured debt of the instant right to collateral security from D, and thus would cooperate with the Plaintiff for cancellation of the right to collateral security” (hereinafter “instant written confirmation”).

D paid KRW 21 million in total to E, including KRW 20 million on May 29, 2015, and KRW 1 million on June 1, 2015, as stated in the instant confirmation letter.

C F E E C G E H [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, entry in Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts and grounds for recognition as to the Plaintiff’s claim, the Defendant’s father E, who appears to have the right to dispose of the instant secured claim as the creditor of the instant secured claim, actually expressed his intention to cancel the instant secured claim when preparing the instant confirmation document.

arrow