logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원 2015.10.23 2014나6422
지상권설정등기말소등기
Text

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The Defendant shall have jurisdiction over the Plaintiff with respect to the land size of 456 square meters for Hongcheon-gun Hongcheon-gun Hongcheon-gun.

Reasons

1. The reasons why the court states this part of the facts of recognition are stated are No. 1 E.

Except for deletion of a claim, it is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it shall be quoted by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Where a party to the creation of a security right, such as a right to collateral security, has established the right to use the property after rent on the land which became the subject matter of the right, or a building or a structure has been constructed or installed, etc. and thus prevents the security right from reducing the value of the security, and superficies, regardless of the purpose or duration of the registered superficies, are also extinguished if the security right has been extinguished;

(2) On July 24, 2014, the Defendant: (a) concluded a mortgage contract in this case with the Defendant to secure the above loan from the Defendant on or around July 31, 2012; (b) concluded a mortgage contract in this case with the Defendant to secure the loan; and (c) completed the registration of creation of a superficies in this case with the Defendant on the same day; and (d) completed the registration of creation of a superficies in this case with the Defendant on August 14, 2012; (b) the Defendant waived the right to collateral in the name of the Defendant with respect to shares in the instant real estate sold to D and completed the registration of creation of a superficies in this case; and (c) completed the registration of modification of a mortgage with respect to the shares in the instant company, which are co-owners, on or before the judgment of the first instance cited earlier.

Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the instant superficies contract was concluded with the primary purpose of preventing the reduction of the value of collateral by establishing the right to use the instant real estate, which is the object of the right to collateral security under the name of the Defendant, or by constructing a building.

However, in the voluntary auction procedure for the instant real estate, the Plaintiff did so.

arrow