(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.02.12 2014나9172 | 리걸엔진

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) 수원지방법원 2015.02.12 2014나9172

배당이의

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The loan transaction agreement dated May 7, 2009 and the mortgage contract agreement dated June 30, 2009 1) the new bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “new bank”) (hereinafter “new bank”).

(2) On May 7, 2009, the Plaintiff concluded a loan transaction agreement with D on the subject of “long-term parent loan loan loan theory” and loaned KRW 230,000,000 to D on May 12, 2009 (hereinafter “instant first loan”).

(2) On June 30, 2009, the new bank entered into a mortgage agreement with D on the 276,000,000 won of the maximum debt amount with respect to the E apartment Nos. 915, 1704, Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si (hereinafter “instant apartment”) and received the registration of establishment of a neighboring apartment on the same day.

(2) In light of the above legal principles, Article 2(1) of the Civil Act provides that “The scope of the secured obligation shall be limited to the scope of the secured obligation” and “the scope of the secured obligation” shall be limited to the scope of the secured obligation, and the scope of the secured obligation shall be limited to the scope of the secured obligation, and the scope of the secured obligation shall be limited to the scope of the secured obligation.”

B. On April 3, 2010 and April 14, 2010, the new bank entered into a loan transaction agreement with D on the loan of “general fund loan” between D and D on April 3, 2010, and loaned KRW 140,000,000 to D on April 15, 2010 (hereinafter “instant loan”).

(2) On April 14, 2010, the New Bank concluded a mortgage agreement with D on the instant apartment amount of KRW 168,000,000 with respect to the instant apartment, and received the registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage from D on the same day.

(hereinafter “the instant collateral security”). However, D written “the instant collateral security” in the column for the scope of the secured obligation under the said collateral security contract, but it constitutes an obligation arising from Mson’s transaction.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원성남지원 2014.02.11 2013가단31266

-서울남부지방법원 2017.11.23 2017가합101752

-수원지방법원평택지원 2014.11.27 2014가단13131

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.07.13 2015가단5252276

-부산고등법원 2016.09.29 2015나56949