logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원서부지원 2017.11.24 2017가단4384
근저당권말소등기
Text

1. The plaintiff's main claim is dismissed.

2. The defendant shall provide the plaintiff with the attached list 102/225 of the real estate stated in the attached list.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a co-owner who completed the registration of transfer on January 24, 1981 with respect to the share of 102/225 of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

B. On March 28, 1992, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 35 million from the Defendant from March 28, 1992 at the maturity of three months from March 28, 1992, and five percent of interest per month. As security, with respect to the Plaintiff’s share of the said 102/225 of the instant real estate, the Busan District Court Gangseo-gu Office of Registry of District, No. 4795 of March 28, 1992, completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter “instant collateral security”).

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap 1 through 4 (including paper numbers), Eul 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the secured debt of this case is no longer existing by discharging all the secured debt of this case through C, which is the defendant's female, through which C, and thus, the secured debt of this case should be cancelled on the ground of non-existence of the secured debt. However, there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that the items of evidence Nos. 3, 4-1, and 2 of the secured debt of this case alone are sufficient to acknowledge that the plaintiff or C performed the secured debt of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise, it is difficult to accept the plaintiff's argument as to the main claim of this case on the premise that the secured debt of this case was extinguished due to the repayment.

B. The plaintiff asserts that the secured claim of the instant right to collateral security of this case has expired ten years since March 28, 1992, the due date for payment, and thus, the period of extinctive prescription should be cancelled on the ground of the expiration of extinctive prescription of the secured claim of this case. 2) As seen earlier, as seen in the judgment, the claim of the borrowed money, which is the secured claim of the instant right to collateral security of this case, shall be subject to the extinctive prescription period (10 years) from March 28, 1992, pursuant to the agreement.

arrow