beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. According to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the plaintiff was found to have completed the registration of creation of a mortgage on April 16, 2002 with respect to the real estate in this case on the following grounds: (a) on April 24, 2007, the plaintiff received a decision of performance recommendation from the non-party B through the lawsuit of claim for the amount of money transferred by the Daejeon District Court No. 2007Gada49329, Jun. 15, 2007; (b) on July 8, 2016, the debt to be borne by the plaintiff was 78,079,125 as of July 8, 2016; and (c) B completed the registration of creation of a mortgage on the part of the debtor and the mortgagee as the defendant stated in the claim of the non-party B and the right to collateral security (hereinafter referred to as the registration
2. Determination
A. The Plaintiff asserts that, as the secured claim for the registration of the establishment of the creation of the creation of the instant neighboring mortgage is currently insolvent, the extinctive prescription has already been completed ten years after the expiration of the ten-year period of extinctive prescription, counting from April 16, 2002, the date of the creation, the Plaintiff, as a creditor of B, sought the cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the creation of the instant neighboring mortgage
However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the initial date of the extinctive prescription of the secured debt of this case was April 16, 2002, and there is no other evidence to support that the extinctive prescription of the secured debt of this case has expired. Thus, the above assertion is groundless.
B. In addition, the Plaintiff asserts that, with the knowledge that B would be subject to compulsory execution from multiple debtors, in collusion with the Defendant, who is a pro-friendly collective security holder, for the purpose of avoiding the compulsory execution, the registration of invalidation should be cancelled as it has been completed on the basis of the most known credit.
However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage was made based on the best credit in collusion, and the above assertion is groundless.
3. Accordingly, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.