Text
1. The defendant shall receive on August 29, 2002 from the Changwon District Court with respect to the 347 square meters in Gyeongsung-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. B is an owner of 347 square meters in Gyeong-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun (hereinafter “instant land”).
B. B, on August 29, 2002, ordered the Defendant to set up the right to collateral security (hereinafter “instant right to collateral security”) of KRW 15 million with respect to the instant land, the maximum debt amount of KRW 12949,000.
C. On July 12, 2017, the Plaintiff applied for a payment order against B and filed with the Busan District Court dong Branch to pay the Plaintiff KRW 19,936,642, and KRW 19,53,527 at the rate of 25% per annum from June 30, 2003 to the date of complete payment. The above payment order was finalized on August 1, 2017.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of whole pleadings
2. The judgment on the cause of a claim is a mortgage established by settling only the maximum amount of the debt to be secured and reserving the determination of the obligation in the future. Since it is a security right established for securing a certain limit from a continuous settlement term in the future, it is necessary to establish a claim secured by the right to collateral separate from the act of establishing the right to collateral security. The burden of proving whether there was a legal act establishing the claim secured by the right to collateral security at the time of the establishment of the right to collateral security has been on the part of claiming its existence (Supreme Court Decision 2009Da72070 Decided December 24, 2009). On the basis of the statement in the document in the document in the document in the document in subparagraph 1 in subparagraph 1, it is insufficient to view that the Defendant created the instant right to collateral security in order to lend the amount of KRW 10 million to B around 201, and it is difficult to find any other evidence to view that the claim secured by the right to collateral security exists.
Even if the Defendant lent KRW 10 million to B around 2001, the Defendant’s loan was more than 10 years after the establishment of the instant right to collateral security.