logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2015.09.11 2015가단500700
근저당권말소
Text

1. As to each real estate listed in the separate list Nos. 1 and 2 to B, the defendant shall make a regional court of Gwangju District on October 1997.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. B jointly and severally guaranteed the credit guarantee agreement between the Plaintiff and tax sources, and the Plaintiff subrogated to KRW 1,334,082,303 in total to the creditors of the Sejong District Court pursuant to the above credit guarantee agreement, and then filed an application for payment order against B for reimbursement of indemnity amount under the Gwangju District Court 2008 tea9868. The above court issued the payment order to B, “B jointly and severally with the Plaintiff, and jointly with C, paid the Plaintiff KRW 1,356,975,603 and delay damages,” and the above payment order was served to B on September 16, 2008.

B. As to each of the real estates listed in [Attachment B] List 1 and 2 (hereinafter “each of the instant real estates”), the Defendant completed the registration of establishment of a neighboring real estate (hereinafter “registration of establishment of a neighboring real estate”) on October 20, 1997, with the maximum debt amount of KRW 45 million under the receipt of the Youngam District Court’s Youngam Registry No. 16899, Oct. 20, 1997, as well as the establishment of a mortgage on October 15, 1997.

C. B is in insolvent as of the date of closing argument in the instant case.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, tax information inquiries and results inquiries into the head of Gwangju Northern District Office, and the purport of the entire pleadings

2. The judgment on the cause of the claim does not require the Defendant to assert and prove any assertion as to the period of repayment of the secured claim secured by the registration of the establishment of the existing mortgage of this case. Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant’s claim on the loan B of this case is in progress from the time of its establishment with a non-fixed credit. It is reasonable to view that at least the secured claim on the registration of the establishment of the existing mortgage of this case was extinguished by the statute of limitations on October 20, 2007, when ten years have passed since the registration of the establishment of the existing mortgage of this case was completed on October 20, 197.

On the other hand, as long as the secured debt has expired by prescription as above, the registration of establishment of the mortgage of this case should also be cancelled according to the subsidiary nature of the right to collateral security. Therefore, the plaintiff as the creditor against B.

arrow