beta
Text
1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.
2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the basic facts is as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, the pertinent statement is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Determination
A. 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion that the secured claim of the instant right to collateral security has expired and expired. Accordingly, the Plaintiff, a general creditor of the obligor C, uses the defense of extinctive prescription against the Defendant by subrogation of C. 2) The Defendant lent KRW 80 million to C and received the establishment of the instant right to collateral security. Since C continued to recognize the secured obligation of this case and have repaid part of the obligation until 2014, the extinctive prescription of the Defendant’s secured claim of this case was interrupted even if the period of extinctive prescription was not interrupted, the Defendant’s failure to raise an objection against the payment order requested by the Defendant was waived the benefit of the completion of extinctive prescription as to the secured obligation of this case, and the Plaintiff’s assertion that the extinctive prescription has expired against the above trust by the Defendant cannot be allowed as an abuse of rights against the principle of good faith.
B. According to the starting point and proceeding of extinctive prescription, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1-1, Eul evidence 1-1, and the purport of the whole testimony and pleading by the witness witness C from around 1995 to January 30, 198, the defendant may recognize the fact that the defendant lent a total of KRW 80 million to C on three occasions and completed the registration of establishment of the creation of the root of this case (hereinafter the defendant's above loan loan claim against Eul).
Since there is no assertion or proof of the defendant regarding the date of establishment and maturity of the loan claim of this case, the above claim is deemed to have been established around January 30, 1998, for which the mortgage of this case was established without setting the deadline.