(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2017.04.27 2015가단122885

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) 서울동부지방법원 2017.04.27 2015가단122885

근저당권말소

Text

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On April 21, 197, the Plaintiff and Defendant B married on April 21, 197, but married on April 28, 2008.

After consultation divorce, the Plaintiff lived with E, who is his father on the first floor of the instant housing, and Defendant B leased a new residence and lived separately with the Plaintiff, etc.

B. With respect to the instant housing in the name of the Plaintiff, the Seoul East East District Court Gangseo-dong District Court (Seoul East District Court’s 81878, Dec. 28, 2006, which was received on December 28, 2006, registered the establishment of a neighboring mortgage in the name of the Plaintiff and the maximum debt amount of Defendant B, which was KRW 20

C. Around April 27, 2015, Defendant B, as the Plaintiff’s agent, leased the second floor among the instant housing to F with a rental deposit of KRW 140,00,000, and a lease period of two years (hereinafter “instant lease”). Defendant C, upon request of the existing lessee, operated G Licensed Real Estate Agents in the vicinity of the instant housing. Defendant D introduced new lessee while operating H Licensed Real Estate Agents in the vicinity of the instant housing.

Meanwhile, the lease deposit of the second floor among the instant housing was KRW 80,000,000 around the time when the original and the Defendant agreed upon. However, the period renewal or the conclusion of a contract with the new lessee was increased to KRW 100,000 through the instant lease.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Gap evidence No. 8 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff did not have concluded a contract to establish a mortgage with Defendant B regarding the instant housing, on the ground that the claim for cancellation of the right to collateral security was 1.

Defendant B forged the Plaintiff’s mortgage contract of this case in the course of marriage with the Plaintiff’s seal, identification card, etc., and created the instant collateral security upon obtaining a certificate of personal seal impression.

The instant right to collateral security is null and void.

유사 판례

-광주지방법원목포지원 2017.11.16 2017가단3497

-서울동부지방법원 2020.06.17 2018가단119453

-인천지방법원 2019.08.14 2018가단16705

-전주지방법원군산지원 2014.06.03 2013가단1780

-서울북부지방법원 2020.11.10 2019나38749