(영문) 전주지방법원 군산지원 2018.10.02 2017가단50698

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 전주지방법원 군산지원 2018.10.02 2017가단50698

근저당권말소

Text

1. As to the real estate listed in the separate sheet to J:

A. Defendant C and D are 5/20 shares, Defendant E, F, G, H, and I, respectively.

Reasons

1. Determination as to the remainder of the Defendants except Defendant B

A. The cause of the claim: as shown in the annexed sheet “the cause of the claim and the changed cause of the claim.”

(b) Applicable provisions of Acts: Article 208 (3) 1 of the Civil Procedure Act;

2. On April 28, 201, the Plaintiff was sentenced to the judgment that “J shall pay the Plaintiff 11,126,570 won and 11,000,000 won with 19% interest per annum from October 23, 1999 to the date of full payment (Seoul Central District Court Decision 201GaDa1021339). The above judgment became final and conclusive around that time. On January 6, 1997, the J concluded a mortgage contract with the Defendant on real estate listed in the attached list (hereinafter “instant real estate”) on which the former District Court: (a) concluded a mortgage contract with the Defendant; (b) concluded a mortgage agreement with the Defendant with respect to the Defendant on January 28, 201; (c) concluded a mortgage agreement with respect to the real estate listed in the attached list (hereinafter “instant real estate”); and (d) concluded that the establishment registration of a mortgage was based on the maximum debt amount of KRW 30,300,000 per annum,000.

On the other hand, there is no specific assertion or proof regarding the period of repayment of the secured debt of the instant right to collateral security. Barring special circumstances, the secured debt of the instant right to collateral security is deemed to be the time when the secured debt of the instant right to collateral security was established, and it is reasonable to view that the period of repayment was January 7, 1997, on which the instant right to collateral security was established. It is apparent that the ten-year ex

Therefore, the prescription of the secured claim of the instant right to collateral has expired, and the instant right to collateral has expired according to the appendant nature of the right to collateral security.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that the period of extinctive prescription has been interrupted by J's acceptance of the obligation.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제208조 제3항 제1호

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 2017.01.13 2016나103079

-전주지방법원 2019.12.06 2018나12332

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.03.12 2016가단5241815

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.09.13 2018나24874

-의정부지방법원 2017.08.18 2017가단9428