beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall support Nonparty A with the Gwangju District Court as to the area of 1531 square meters prior to Gwangju-do, Jeonyang-do.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On December 10, 2014, the Plaintiff applied for a payment order against Nonparty A with the amount of reimbursement reimbursement of KRW 66,430,756, and KRW 31,325,711 of the said amount, the payment order was finalized on December 30, 2014, with the payment order of KRW 12% per annum from December 10, 2014 to the date of service of the original copy of the payment order, and KRW 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.
B. On April 23, 1999, the Defendant completed the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter “registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage of this case”) between Nonparty A and Nonparty A with respect to the real estate indicated in the attached Form, with the maximum debt amount of KRW 45 million.
C. A does not have any particular positive property other than the instant real property, and is currently insolvent.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 2 to 7, purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts, since the registration of creation of a mortgage of this case is apparent that the extinctive prescription of the secured debt has expired after the lapse of 10 years from the date of establishment, the defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for cancellation of the above establishment of a mortgage, upon the plaintiff's request by the non-party A, who seeks to cancel the registration of establishment of a mortgage of this case by subrogationing the non-party A as the creditor of this case. 2) The defendant's assertion and judgment as to this, since the non-party A voluntarily renounced the benefit of extinctive prescription
Although it is alleged that the extinctive prescription of the secured obligation has not been completed, the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 alone is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, the above argument by the defendant is without merit.
3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified.