logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.10.22 2018가단5023264
근저당권부채권압류등기의 말소
Text

1. The defendant on June 2007, with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet to the plaintiff, machinery, such as the Cheongju District Court Chocheon Branch Court.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. As to each real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the instant real estate”), the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage as indicated in paragraph (1) of the Disposition No. 1 (hereinafter “registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage”) was completed, with respect to each real estate indicated in the separate sheet owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the instant real estate”).

B. On May 24, 2013, the Defendant: (a) seized B’s secured claim against B on the grounds of default of national taxes; and (b) completed the registration of seizure of the secured claim against B, which was received on May 30, 2013 by the Cheongju District Court No. 13207, such as the Cheongju District Court’s Jeju District Court’s Cheongju District Court.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The right to collateral security is a mortgage established by setting only the maximum amount of the debt to be secured and reserving the determination of the debt in the future (Article 357(1) of the Civil Act), and is established with the aim of securing a certain limit at a settlement term in the future. Thus, separate from the act of establishing the right to collateral security, there is a legal act establishing the right to collateral security, and the burden of proof as to whether there was a legal act establishing the right to collateral security at the time of establishing the right to collateral security at the time of establishing the right to collateral security exists.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da72070, Dec. 24, 2009). Meanwhile, in cases where a claim with a right to collateral is seized, the purpose of registering the seizure of the right to collateral by means of additional registration in the establishment registration of the right to collateral security is to publicly announce the seizure of the right to collateral because the seizure of the right to collateral security becomes effective even in cases where the right to collateral security is attached, which is a right subordinate to the right based on the incidental nature of the right to collateral security, and thus, if there is no secured claim in the

arrow