(영문) 춘천지방법원 강릉지원 2017.01.18 2016가단3368

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) 춘천지방법원 강릉지원 2017.01.18 2016가단3368

근저당권말소

Text

1. The plaintiff's primary claim and the conjunctive claim are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the assignee of the claim from the Busan 2 Mutual Savings Bank, which received from the Busan 2 Mutual Savings Bank the claim pursuant to the final decision on performance recommendation in the case No. 2007Ga branch court 2099, and notified the assignment of the claim to B.

B. B acquired ownership of the instant real estate on August 2, 2001.

C. B borrowed a total of KRW 15,000,000 from the Defendant several times over several times in 2001, and completed the registration of the establishment of the mortgage over the instant real estate with the maximum debt amount of KRW 15,000,000, the maximum debt amount of KRW 32052 as of September 26, 2001, and the registration of the establishment of the mortgage over the debtor B and the mortgagee of the instant real estate (hereinafter “the establishment of the mortgage over the instant case”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, witness B's testimony, purport of whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the main claim

A. 1) The Plaintiff asserts that, first, the secured obligation of this case is nonexistent, and second, even if the secured obligation exists, the 10-year extinctive prescription has already expired, the Defendant shall cancel the registration of establishment of the creation of the instant collateral. 2) The Defendant, around 2001, set up the instant collateral security right in order to lend money to B and secure the loan obligation several times, and on the other hand, the B promised to continue to repay the obligation up to the date of establishing the instant collateral security right. Such act constitutes the approval of the obligation, which is the cause of interruption of extinctive prescription, and thus, the secured obligation of this case was not completed.

B. According to the facts of the judgment Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 5, and the purport of the witness B’s testimony and pleading as a whole, B borrowed money several times from the defendant around 2001, and it is recognized that B created the right to collateral security of this case as security.

유사 판례

-전주지방법원 2018.01.10 2017가단15739

-대구지방법원상주지원 2017.10.18 2016가단10413

-수원지방법원평택지원 2020.10.15 2019가단63438

-수원지방법원안양지원 2017.07.12 2016가단109602

-수원지방법원 2016.12.15 2016가단533814