beta
Text
1. The defendant is the Jeju District Court No. 11642, Feb. 24, 1998 regarding the real estate stated in the attached list to the plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant land”) is owned by the Plaintiff.
B. As to the instant land on December 4, 1996, the Jeju District Court received No. 64508, Dec. 5, 1996, as to the ownership of a reinforced concrete building for the purpose of this case, the ownership of the building from December 5, 1996, the duration of the building, the superficies creation registration for the superficiary C&Wlu Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant superficies creation registration”), was completed on December 5, 1996, and the registration of transfer was completed under the name of the Defendant on April 25, 2016.
C. As to the instant land on February 23, 1998, the registration of transfer was completed under the name of the Defendant on April 25, 2016, as the Jeju District Court No. 11642, Feb. 24, 1998, the maximum debt amount of KRW 110,00,000,000, the debtor, the Plaintiff, the mortgagee of the right to collateral security, and the right to collateral security (hereinafter “the registration of creation of the instant neighboring neighboring land”).
[In the absence of dispute, Gap 1]
2. The claim for cancellation of the registration of a collateral security is a mortgage created by setting only the maximum amount of the debt to be secured and reserving the determination of the debt in the future (Article 357(1) of the Civil Act). Since it is a security right established to secure a certain limit in a settlement term for the future several unspecified claims arising from a continuous business relationship, there must be a legal act establishing the claim secured by the right to collateral security separately from the act of establishing the right to collateral security. The burden of proof as to whether there was a legal act establishing the claim secured by the right to collateral security at the time of establishing
(Supreme Court Decision 2010Da107408 Decided April 28, 201). However, there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant had a legal act establishing the secured claim of the instant mortgage that was transferred to the Defendant, and thus, the instant right to collateral security is null and void as there is no secured claim.
Therefore, the defendant is therefore the plaintiff.