(영문) 춘천지방법원 2016.11.30 2016가단3655

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) 춘천지방법원 2016.11.30 2016가단3655

근저당권설정등기말소

Text

1. The defendant on March 31, 198, with respect to the plaintiff about 15,238 square meters of the forest land in Seocheon-gun Hongcheon-gun, Hongcheon-gun, Hongcheon District Court, Hongcheon-gun, 198.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. D, around March 1998, written a letter to the defendant that he would pay 40 million won to the defendant within six months.

B. In order to secure the above debt against D on March 30, 1998, the Defendant entered into a mortgage agreement with the Plaintiff on the amount of KRW 40 million with respect to the maximum debt amount of KRW 238,00,000,000 with respect to 15,238,000,000 Won-gun, Hongcheon-gun, which is owned by the Plaintiff, the debtor, and the mortgagee. On March 31, 198, the Defendant completed the registration of the establishment of the neighboring district court (hereinafter “registration of the establishment of the neighboring district”).

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the facts of the determination as to the cause of the claim, it is reasonable to view that the secured debt of the establishment registration of the instant neighboring mortgage reaches the due date of payment on September 30, 1998, which was six months from March 30, 1998, at the latest. It is apparent in the record that the instant lawsuit was filed on June 15, 2016, ten years after the instant lawsuit was filed, and therefore, the establishment registration of the instant neighboring mortgage should be cancelled due to the lapse of the statute of limitations.

B. As to the judgment of the defendant's assertion, the defendant asserted that since the plaintiff and D requested the termination of the registration of the establishment of a mortgage on the part of the plaintiff and D to pay the money to the defendant, the extinctive prescription has been interrupted due to the debtor's approval, but there is no evidence to acknowledge this, the defendant'

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.

유사 판례

-춘천지방법원 2015.07.23 2014가단34723

-춘천지방법원 2018.04.25 2017가단5610

-춘천지방법원 2020.09.08 2020가단53534

-춘천지방법원 2017.12.06 2017가단54759

-수원지방법원성남지원 2016.01.08 2015가단22648