logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2015.06.12 2014가단120509
근저당권말소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

Basic Facts

On April 24, 2001, the Plaintiff purchased real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer on December 18, 2002.

With respect to the instant real estate, the Suwon District Court’s Gyeyang-gu Branch of the Suwon District Court completed the establishment registration of mortgage (hereinafter “mortgage”) that caused the establishment of mortgage agreement as of May 21, 2012 by No. 14941, May 18, 2012, on the ground of the debtor B (hereinafter “B”), the debtor Company B (hereinafter “B”), the defendant of the right to collateral security, and the maximum debt amount, 100 million won.

[Grounds for recognition] Gap 1 and 2's respective descriptions and the purport of the whole pleadings.

Judgment on the Grounds of Claim

A. The Plaintiff is the cause of the instant claim. ① Even if the Defendant created the instant mortgage, the Defendant’s representative director C and the Defendant did not wish to additionally supply the instant mortgage to B in the future. However, the Plaintiff stated that “When the Plaintiff created the instant mortgage by establishing the instant mortgage, the Defendant would stably supply the instant mortgage to B with the Defendant as a security.” The Plaintiff was granted the instant mortgage from the Plaintiff. ② In fact, B had the Defendant borne the Defendant’s obligation of KRW 1 billion with the Defendant at the time of the instant mortgage creation, and was in bankruptcy on June 26, 2012, the Defendant’s management, despite the fact that the Defendant was in bankruptcy on June 26, 2012, D, on the ground that “The Defendant and B did not have any existing attempted credit between the Defendant and B, which would be very low financial structure, so it was obtained from the Plaintiff that the instant mortgage establishment was concluded by the Defendant’s mistake or cancellation of the instant mortgage establishment contract with the Defendant’s registration of the instant mortgage establishment.”

arrow