beta
Text
1. The defendant shall accept on August 26, 2002 to D each real estate listed in the separate sheet from Gwangju District Court.
Reasons
Basic Facts
In full view of the evidence No. 1 and evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as well as the overall purport of the arguments and arguments, the purport of the plaintiff can be acknowledged that as to D, the plaintiff has a claim for indemnity under the payment order No. 201 tea 14612, and as to each real estate listed in the attached list No. D (hereinafter "each land of this case"), the amount of claim No. 20,000,000, due date for payment, and the amount of claim No. 11078, Aug. 26, 2002, the Gwangju District Court’s Mine Office No. 20,000, and the interest rate of 10% per annum (hereinafter “the mortgage of this case”).
Judgment of this Court
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The instant mortgage should be cancelled due to the absence of the secured debt. Even if the secured debt of the instant mortgage exists, this statute of limitations expired. 2) The instant mortgage of the Defendant’s assertion was established to secure a loan claim of KRW 20,000,000 against D, and D recognizes the obligation.
B. At the time of establishment of the right to collateral security, the burden of proof as to whether there was a legal act establishing the secured claim of the right to collateral security exists (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da72070, Dec. 24, 2009). The same holds true for the burden of proof as to whether there was a legal act establishing the secured claim of the right to collateral security.
Although the Defendant asserts that the secured debt of the instant mortgage against D is a loan claim, there is no evidence to acknowledge it.
(Y) Even if the instant mortgage was established in order to secure the Defendant’s loan claims against D, the said loan claims were extinguished by extinctive prescription, since 10 years have elapsed since the due date for the said loan claims became due. Therefore, the instant mortgage should be cancelled by the registration of invalidity of the cause.
Therefore, the Defendant’s land of this case to the Plaintiff.