logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원영월지원 2016.06.29 2016가단917
근저당권설정등기말소 등
Text

1. The defendant on January 13, 1989 with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet to the plaintiff.

Reasons

Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the arguments in Gap evidence No. 1-1, 2, and 3 as to the cause of the claim, 60/130 (=30/130) shares out of each real estate listed in the separate sheet as to C, D shares out of the respective real estate listed in the separate sheet, as to the 30/130 (D 30/130/130) shares, and as to the 175 of January 12, 1989 as 175 on January 13, 1989 (the maximum debt amount of 1,30,000 won, C, and D, the debtor and D, and the mortgage owner, respectively, completed the registration of establishment of a neighboring real estate as the defendant, and thereafter, the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of each of the above real estate under the title of D shares out of each of the above real estate after completing the registration of establishment of ownership transfer from E on November 22, 191, and completed the registration of ownership transfer under the title of CF.21, 301.21.

According to the above facts, it shall be deemed that the extinctive prescription as to the secured debt of the above secured debt of the above secured debt has expired on January 12, 1999 after ten years since the contract establishing a right to collateral in the name of the defendant as to the portion C out of each of the above secured debt was concluded, and as such, the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for the cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a right to collateral in the vicinity of the above secured debt, which was completed on January 13, 1989 as the registration office of Chuncheon District Court No. 175, Jan. 13, 1989, as to each of the above secured debt.

The defendant's assertion is alleged to the purport that it is improper to cancel each of the above collateral security rights even though D and his/her mother C and Dong F did not repay the secured debt of each of the above collateral security rights. However, the defendant completed the extinctive prescription by exercising his/her right on the secured debt of the above collateral security right.

arrow