The registration of establishment of a mortgage near the instant case where the secured claim does not exist shall be made for the invalidity of the cause.

Since the establishment registration of a mortgage of this case, which does not exist a secured claim, constitutes a registration of invalidity of the cause, and the creditor seeks to cancel the registration based on the creditor's subrogation right, the mortgagee of the right to collateral security must express his/her consent to the cancellation registration of the establishment

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Seoul Central District Court 2014Gadan530854 Action to implement the procedure for registration cancellation of the registration of the right to collateral security;

CreditA Fund

Republic of Korea 4

September 10, 2015

October 15, 2015

1.For the leastA:

A. Defendant Lee Dong-A is the Seoul Central District Court on June 6, 2004 with respect to the real estate listed in attached Table 1.

26. completed under No. 25970:

B. Defendant Kim A shall have the Seoul Central District Court on June 6, 2004 with respect to the real estate stated in paragraph 2 of the above list.

26. completed under No. 25971 of the receipt:

C. Defendant KimB, as to the real estate stated in paragraph 3 of the above list, the Seoul Central District Court on June 2004

26. Completion of receipt No. 25972

The registration procedure for cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage shall be implemented.

2.For the leastA:

A. As to the registration of cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a mortgage near the above 1-B, Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government:

B. As to the registration of cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a mortgage on the part of the above 1-C.

The declaration of each acceptance shall be made.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Defendants.

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff filed a claim against the lowestA for reimbursement amount against the Seoul Central District Court 201Ga180996

B. On July 29, 2011, “A” was sentenced by the lower court that “A” was paid to the Plaintiff 449,742,59 won and 192,183,38 won with 19% interest per annum from May 13, 1985 to the date of full payment. The foregoing judgment became final and conclusive on October 20, 201.

(b) The leastA shall be recorded on June 26, 2004 in the separate sheet 1 attached hereto, owned by the defendant Lee Dong-A.

As to the real estate (hereinafter referred to as the “real estate of this case”), the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage of KRW 110,00,000,000 for the maximum debt amount, ② the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage of KRW 130,000 with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as the “second real estate”) owned by Defendant KimA, with respect to the establishment of a mortgage of KRW 130,000 for the maximum debt amount, and ③ the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage of KRW 120,000 for the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 3 (hereinafter referred to as the “third real estate”) owned by Defendant KimB, with respect to the real estate of KRW 120,000 for the maximum debt amount (hereinafter referred to as

C. On August 22, 2006, the defendant Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government completed the registration of seizure on the claim of the second collateral mortgage on the ground of the delinquent local taxes of the defendant KimA, and the defendant Republic of Korea completed the seizure on the claim of the third collateral mortgage on November 25, 2004 on the ground of the delinquent local taxes of the defendant KimB.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entries in Gap 1 and 2 evidence (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The parties' assertion

The plaintiff does not have any secured claim or has already expired each of the instant secured claims.

Since it is null and void upon extinction, as a creditor of the lowestA, the defendant Lee Dong, KimA, and Kim in subrogation of the lowestA.

As to the closing Gu, each of the instant mortgages is sought to cancel, and as to the defendant Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and the Republic of Korea, it is claimed that the consent of the cancellation of the instant 2 and 3 collateral mortgages is sought.

ThisA, KimA, and KimB shall make each investment in or loan to the leastA on June 2004.

Since each of the instant mortgages was completed, each of the instant mortgages asserts that all of the secured claims existed.

B. Determination

(1) The right to collateral security determines only the maximum amount of the debt to be secured and reserving the determination of the debt in the future.

As a mortgage created by setting the right to collateral security, there must be a legal act establishing the secured claim of the right to collateral security separately from the act of setting the right to collateral security. The burden of proof as to whether there was a legal act establishing the secured claim of the right to collateral security at the time of establishing the right to collateral security lies on the part of claiming its existence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da72070, Dec. 24, 2009). Accordingly, in the instant case where the Plaintiff asserts that there was no secured claim of each of the instant claims, Defendant AA, KimA, and KimB, who is the mortgagee, bears the burden of proving the existence

(2) According to the evidence evidence Nos. 1, 4, and 7, it is recognized that Defendant A transferred the amount of KRW 50,000,000 on June 22, 2004 and KRW 42,00,000 on June 24, 2004, Defendant Kim Young-A, and KRW 110,000,00 on June 23, 2004, and Defendant KimB transferred the amount of KRW 93,000,000 on June 222, 2004 to each leastA. However, considering the evidence Nos. 6, the result of this court’s response to each financial transaction information submission to one bank, Nonghyup Bank, and Korea Bank, the fact-finding conducted a fact-finding inquiry with respect to the head of Seocho-gu, and the following circumstances, each of the above claims of this case are insufficient to acknowledge the existence of each of the secured claims of this case (the evidence No. 1 of this case).

① Defendant A is the husband of the most dynamics of the leastA, and Defendant KimA is the her husband, and Defendant KimA is the largest part of the A.

The defendant KimB is the same as the elementary school, and the defendant KimB is the highestA and the high school.

② Defendant Lee Dong-A, KimA, and KimB have not disclosed how to prepare money remitted to the leastA through objective data such as details of financial transactions.

③ Defendant A had reached approximately KRW 30,000,00,000, around June 2004.

The LA transferred KRW 5,00,000 from the LA to the LA on June 22, 2004, KRW 35,000,00,000, and KRW 15,000 from the LA to its own account, and later KRW 50,000 to the LA after about 45 minutes. The LA transferred KRW 15,00,000 to the LA on June 24, 2004. The LA transferred KRW 15,00,000 to the LA on June 24, 200. The LA had been withdrawn from the LAC bank head on June 24, 2004, KRW 42,00,000 to the LA head of LA under the name of the Defendant LA after about 1 hour.

④ On June 23, 2004, Defendant KimA received KRW 43,000,000, 444,000,000,000, and KRW 24,000,00 in one’s passbook in order from Han-sung Co., Ltd., Ltd., and remitted each of the above money to the leastA after approximately 10-15 minutes.

⑤ On June 22, 2004,000,000 won from a passbook in the name of the largestA bank to the KimCC.

The withdrawal was about 2 hours and 30 minutes later, and deposited again in the name of defendant KimB, and on the same day.

49,400,000 won was deposited by cashier's checks and deposited again in the name of defendant KimB after about five minutes.

6. The defendant Lee A, KimA, and KimB shall make each investment or investment in money to the leastA.

Although it is alleged that a loan or loan was made, there is no written investment agreement or loan certificate, nor there is no other difference in receiving profits or interests from the leastA.

(3) Therefore, since the registration of creation of each of the instant collateral units constitutes a registration null and void of cause, and the Plaintiff, a creditor of the largestA, sought cancellation of each of the above registrations based on the creditor’s subrogation right, Defendant Lee Dong-A shall cancel the registration of creation of the instant collateral units, Defendant Kim Young-A, and Defendant KimB shall cancel the registration of establishment of the instant collateral units, respectively. Defendant Seocho-gu, Seoul, shall cancel the registration of cancellation of the registration of establishment of the instant collateral units, and Defendant Republic of Korea shall express its intention of each of the acceptances with respect to the registration of cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the instant collateral units units.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted on the grounds of its reasoning.