logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원순천지원 2019.03.21 2018가단3360
근저당권말소
Text

1. With respect to E-owned shares of 77/336 of the real estate listed in the separate sheet to E:

A. Defendant B shall be the Gwangju District Court.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a creditor of the acquisition amount under the payment order issued by the Seoul Central District Court 2008 tea35203, and E is an owner of 77/336 shares of each real estate listed in the separate sheet.

B. The Defendants completed the registration of the establishment of the establishment of each of the sub-paragraph (1) of the above real estate E’s shares in the above real estate.

(hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant collective security claims”). [Grounds for recognition] Defendant B and C: Fact that there is no dispute against Defendant B and C, entry of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and purport of the entire pleadings as to Defendant D: Decision by deeming confession (Articles 208(2)2 and 150(3) of the Civil Procedure Act)

2. According to the facts of the judgment as to the cause of the claim, as long as it is apparent that 10 years have elapsed since the establishment date of each of the instant collateral, it is reasonable to view that the statute of limitations for each of the instant collateral security claims has expired. Therefore, the Defendants are obliged to perform the registration procedure for cancellation of each of the instant collateral security claims to E, and the Plaintiff, as the assignee of the transfer money to E, can seek the cancellation of the registration of establishment of the instant collateral security by subrogation against the Defendants in lieu of E.

Defendant B and C alleged that they failed to exercise their rights due to inevitable circumstances, such as not communicating with E, which is the debtor, but the above circumstance alone does not necessarily lead to the interruption of the extinctive prescription of the secured claim. Therefore, the aforementioned Defendants’ assertion cannot be accepted.

3. The plaintiff's claim of this case against the defendants is justified, and all of the claims are accepted. It is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow