logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.10.26 2017나9314
근저당권및 지상권 말소
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the facts is that, except for the modification of “price equivalent to the above amount” under Section 22 of the judgment of the court of first instance, the relevant part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the relevant part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, the same is cited in accordance with

2. Summary of the plaintiff's ground of claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion of the absence of the secured obligation under the instant mortgage and its judgment are almost identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance.

1) If C provides the Defendant with the instant land as collateral for full-time farming, the Defendant supplied rice of an amount equivalent to KRW 800 million to full-time farming, and paid it to the Plaintiff through the process of elaboration of full-time farming, and then, the Plaintiff entered into the instant mortgage contract with the Plaintiff. The Defendant was well aware of such circumstance at the time of entering into the instant mortgage contract. Accordingly, the secured obligation of the instant mortgage is limited to the obligation related to credit transactions on agricultural products after August 12, 2015, which is the date of entering into the instant mortgage contract. Since the Defendant did not supply agricultural products to full-time farming after entering into the instant mortgage contract, there is no secured obligation of this case.

Ultimately, the secured obligation of the instant right to collateral security does not exist, and thus, the instant right to collateral security and superficies should be cancelled.

B. The Defendant asserts that the termination of the instant mortgage contract includes the existing obligation of Mangsan as to the secured obligation of the instant mortgage.

This is an addition to "in the Agreement on Credit Transactions of Agricultural Products on August 12, 2015, which was entered into between the defendant and Mangsan."

arrow