(영문) 인천지방법원부천지원 2019.05.08 2018가단11963

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 인천지방법원부천지원 2019.05.08 2018가단11963

근저당권말소

Text

1. The defendant received on July 28, 2004 from the Incheon District Court Branch of the Incheon District Court as to the real estate stated in the attached list from the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. According to the evidence No. 1, the Defendant is recognized as having completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter “mortgage of this case”) under No. 89147, which was received on July 28, 2004, as of the Plaintiff’s 54/675 portion among the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant lent KRW 400,000,000 to C, set up a right to collateral security regarding C's share and the plaintiff's share among the real estate of this case.

After that, the right to collateral security in the name of the defendant with respect to C’s share in the instant real estate was cancelled on the ground of sale by compulsory auction, and only the right to collateral security in the instant real estate remains. Since the statute of limitations has expired, the obligation to C against the defendant has expired, and the Plaintiff did not bear the obligation to the defendant, the registration of collateral security in the name of the defendant should be cancelled.

B. According to the facts of the above determination, as long as the mortgage of this case was established more than 10 years ago, it is reasonable to view that the prescription of the secured claim of the above secured claim has expired. Thus, the defendant is obliged to implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of the right to collateral of this case to the plaintiff.

In regard to this, the defendant failed to be notified of the fact that C's share in the real estate of this case was sold by compulsory auction, and the defendant failed to receive repayment from C, so it cannot cancel the mortgage of this case. However, the above circumstance alone alone does not lead to the interruption of extinctive prescription of the secured claim. Therefore, the defendant's argument is without merit.

3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is reasonable and acceptable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

유사 판례

-인천지방법원부천지원 2019.04.24 2018가단111368

-인천지방법원부천지원 2014.12.24 2014가합559

-인천지방법원부천지원 2015.12.17 2015가단20225

-인천지방법원부천지원 2016.11.23 2016가단101657

-인천지방법원부천지원 2015.09.23 2015가합100401