본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
인천지방법원 2016.10.07 2015가단47982

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;


Basic Facts

The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against K and L to return the loan (2012da65446) to the Incheon District Court.

On March 25, 2013, the foregoing court rendered a ruling to recommend reconciliation that “K and L shall jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff 79,404,000 won and 59,040,000 won with interest rate of 30% per annum from March 26, 2013 to the date of full payment.” The foregoing ruling became final and conclusive on April 12, 2013.

K, such as the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage of K, completed the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter referred to as the “registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage of this case”) (hereinafter referred to as the “mortgage of this case”) with respect to the portion of 4472/94 out of 9,894 square meters (hereinafter referred to as the “instant land”) from M on January 24, 1997, by the Changwon District Court, Seowon District Court, Seoul District Court No. 1770, Jan. 24, 1997.

On the other hand, M, the mortgagee of the right to collateral security, died on June 5, 2007, and the defendant (appointed party) and the designated parties (hereinafter "the defendant et al.") jointly succeeded to M's property.

The Plaintiff’s seizure and collection of the mortgage claim of this case.

On December 2, 2013, based on the ruling of recommending reconciliation stated in the Paragraph, the Incheon District Court issued a seizure and collection order concerning the instant collateral security claims (hereinafter “instant collection order”) with the Incheon District Court 2013TTT 36725, and the said order was final delivered on August 13, 2014 to the Defendant, etc.

【Ground of recognition” without any dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including a serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings, and the plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff should pay the collection amount stipulated in the collection order of this case to the plaintiff who is the collection obligee by the defendant, etc. who jointly succeeded to the collateral security debt of this case. On the other hand, the defendant et al. asserted that the collection claim of this case should not exist when considering the result of the claim for cancellation of the registration of the collateral security of this case against K.