beta
Text
1. The defendant received on May 19, 200 from the Busan District Court Seo- Branch on the real estate stated in the attached list from the plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”).
B. On May 18, 200, the Plaintiff concluded a mortgage agreement with the Defendant on the basis of the maximum debt amount of 30 million won with respect to the instant real estate, and concluded a mortgage agreement with the Defendant on May 18, 200 with respect to the instant real estate by the Busan District Court Seo Branch No. 7198, May 19, 2000 (hereinafter “instant mortgage”).
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings
2. Determination:
A. The Plaintiff asserts that the secured debt of the instant right to collateral security has ceased to exist with the ten-year lapse of prescription period.
There is no assertion or proof as to the period for repayment of the secured claim of the instant right to collateral security, and it is reasonable to view that the secured claim is extinctive prescription from the time of establishment of a claim without setting the period.
The secured claim of the instant right to collateral security was found to have been established on May 18, 200 or May 19, 2000, which was the date of entering into the instant contract of collateral security, and it was apparent that ten years have passed thereafter. Thus, the secured claim of the instant right to collateral security was extinguished by prescription.
The Defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the neighboring mortgage of the instant real estate completed to the Plaintiff.
B. On this issue, the Defendant asserted that the Defendant purchased the instant real estate from the Plaintiff, and established the instant collateral for the purpose of securing the obligation to register ownership transfer without registering ownership transfer upon the Plaintiff’s request, and that the Defendant demanded the Plaintiff to implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer of the instant real estate on May 6, 201, extinctive prescription as to the secured claim of the instant collateral was suspended, but there is no evidence to acknowledge such assertion.