logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2014.12.19 2014가합512386
근저당권설정등기절차이행청구의 소
Text

1. The defendant shall establish the following registration procedures for the establishment of a new mortgage on each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 4 to the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. The facts constituting the basis for the determination of the instant case’s establishment registration are as shown in the attached Form 1, 2, and 3. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to implement the procedures for the establishment registration of the neighboring mortgage under the instant business agreement with the Plaintiffs.

2. On the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant asserts that the instant business agreement was rescinded on the grounds that the Plaintiff bank failed to implement the instant business agreement, etc., or that the joint business relationship under the instant business agreement was terminated due to the bankruptcy of the Plaintiff bank, and that the instant establishment registration obligation was extinguished.

However, in light of the nature of the instant business agreement or the fact that the Plaintiff bank indirectly and indirectly raised funds exceeding USD 30,000,000,000 as stated on the basis of the underlying facts, even if the Plaintiff bank failed to perform its loan obligations, the instant business agreement cannot be retroactively rescinded, and a joint business relationship under the instant business agreement was terminated due to the Plaintiff bank’s bankruptcy, etc.

Even if the business agreement of this case is invalidated in the future, and as long as the loan of this case 22.7 billion won and the agreed interest or delay damages claim of this case are remaining, it is reasonable to view that the part of the obligation to register the establishment of the collateral following the business agreement of this case and the loan of this case is still in existence. Thus, the defendant's above assertion cannot be accepted.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiffs' primary claims are justified and acceptable.

(A) If the main claim is accepted, no separate determination is required for the conjunctive claim.)

arrow