Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
Basic Facts
A. As to B, the Plaintiff has a credit card payment claim of KRW 6,272,661 (as of July 30, 2014).
B. On July 27, 2004, B completed the registration of creation of a collateral on the ground of a contract to establish a collateral on the same date in the future of the defendant as to the real estate listed in the attached list on the list of its ownership.
(hereinafter “instant collateral security”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entries in Gap’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. The Plaintiff’s assertion is invalid as the right to collateral security of this case was set falsely without the secured claim, and even if there were the secured claim, the secured claim existed.
Even if 10 years have passed since the date of registration of creation of the above right to collateral security, the extinctive prescription was completed on July 27, 2014, and thus invalid equally.
Therefore, the plaintiff is acting in subrogation of the right to claim cancellation of the mortgage of this case against the defendant B as a creditor of B.
3. Determination
A. The burden of proving whether there was a legal act establishing the secured claim of the right to collateral at the time of establishment of the right to collateral security at the time of establishment of the right to collateral security, as to the non-existence of the secured claim.
(2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the following facts can be acknowledged: (a) the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 13 million from the Defendant on July 27, 2004 and agreed to repay the said amount until July 26, 2006, in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement of evidence Nos. 209Da720070, Dec. 24, 2009, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da720070, Feb. 26, 2002). As long as the establishment of a disposal document is authentic, the court may recognize the existence and content of the declaration of intent as stated in the statement unless there is any counter-proof that it is clear and acceptable to deny the contents of the document (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da48265, Feb. 26, 2002).