beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. On October 18, 2003, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a mortgage agreement with regard to the instant building owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “mortgage agreement”) of KRW 100 million with the obligor and the mortgagee of the right to collateral security, and with respect to the instant building on the same day, the fact that the Plaintiff completed the instant mortgage registration of KRW 100 million with respect to the instant building on the same day may be recognized according to the records of evidence A, either there is no dispute between the parties or according to the record of evidence No. 1.
2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment were made at the end of C's statement that the defendant would prepare KRW 100 million from the defendant, and the defendant did not receive KRW 100 million from the defendant, but it is difficult to view it as a third party as a person closely related to the extent that the defendant could be said to be identical to C. Even if it is not so, in light of the relation between the defendant and C, the defendant argued that the plaintiff knew or could have known the circumstances that the plaintiff completed the registration of the right to collateral security of this case by deceiving C, and on the ground of deception, the defendant revoked the contract to establish the right to collateral security of this case and sought the cancellation of the registration
Where a third party makes a fraud or duress with respect to an expression of intention made by the other party, the declaration of intention made by the other party may be revoked, only if the other party has known or could have known such fact.
The fraud or coercion of a person who is deemed to be identical to the other party, such as his/her agent, does not constitute fraud or coercion of a third party referred to in this context.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Da60828, Feb. 23, 1999). In this case, even if it is acknowledged that the mortgage contract of this case was concluded by deception of C, as alleged by the Plaintiff of health class and household affairs, the Defendant may be presented the same as C.
or the defendant, as to this case.