beta
Text
1. B Of the 15th apartment houses, No. 503, the fifth floor among the 15th apartment houses of reinforced concrete structure C, Busan Northern-gu, Busan Northern District.
Reasons
1. The fact of recognition that the Plaintiff entered into a mortgage contract on aggregate buildings of 125,073,289 won on May 24, 200 and May 9, 2001 with respect to B, and the creditor who has a monetary claim equivalent to the damages for delay of 124,989,569 won among them, under a credit guarantee contract entered into on May 24, 2000 and May 9, 2001, and the merchant who was supplied with a steves and engaged in wholesale and retail business with the Defendant on April 29, 2003, the Plaintiff did not dispute between the Plaintiff and the steves of 35 stories of reinforced concrete C, 503 and 84.96 square meters of the 5th floor among the apartment buildings of 15th floor, and on April 30, 2003, the Plaintiff did not receive the maximum debt amount as the Defendant received on April 30, 2003 as the above contract.
According to the above facts, the statute of limitations has expired since the lapse of five years from April 30, 2008 with respect to the secured claim of the instant right to collateral security.
I would like to say.
Although the defendant asserts that the plaintiff cannot assert the expiration of the extinctive prescription, the general creditor against the debtor may assert the extinctive prescription by subrogation of the debtor to the extent necessary to preserve his/her own claim when the extinctive prescription expires (Supreme Court Decision 2011Da109500 Decided May 10, 201), and the defendant's above assertion is without merit.
In addition, the defendant lent 60,000,000 won to B for business purposes on or around April 19, 2003, and there was a defense that B gave up the benefit of extinctive prescription by the agreement that B would pay 60,000,000 won as the secured debt of the right to collateral security (right to collateral security) on or around December 19, 2010, but there is no evidence to prove otherwise.
Rather, the defendant tried to examine B as a witness on several dates for pleading in order to prove the authenticity of the evidence No. 5.