(영문) 수원지방법원안양지원 2014.10.29 2013가단25000

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) 수원지방법원안양지원 2014.10.29 2013가단25000

근저당권말소

Text

1. The defendant on May 13, 2005, concerning each real estate listed in the separate sheet to the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff was the spouse of the non-party C, and currently is divorced, and the defendant is the type of the defendant C.

B. On April 30, 2005, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer due to sale on April 29, 2005 with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant lands”).

C. As to each of the instant lands, the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage in the name of the Plaintiff, the mortgagee, and the mortgagee on May 13, 2005 (hereinafter “registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage”) was completed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1, Gap evidence 2-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that the registration of the establishment of a new mortgage of this case should be cancelled in an improper manner because there is no secured debt.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that D, who is the defendant, lent money to the plaintiff and C for several years until D completed the registration of the establishment of the mortgage of this case, and D lent money from the defendant, and that D completed the registration of the establishment of the mortgage of this case in the name of the defendant in order to secure D's loan claims against the plaintiff, C, D, and C.

3. The judgment of the court below is a mortgage established by setting only the maximum amount of the debt to be secured and reserving the determination of the debt in the future. Since multiple unspecified claims arising from continuous business relations are established for the purpose of securing a certain limit in a settlement term in the future, there must be “legal act establishing the secured debt” separate from the “act of establishing the secured debt in the future,” and the burden of proving whether there was a legal act establishing the secured debt in the course of establishing the secured debt in the course of the establishment of the right to collateral security.

Supreme Court Decision 2009Da72070 Decided December 24, 2009 and Supreme Court Decision 2010Da10740 Decided April 28, 2011

유사 판례

-대구지방법원의성지원 2019.08.14 2019가단212

-수원지방법원성남지원 2020.11.27 2019가단203728

-춘천지방법원속초지원 2014.11.28 2013가단4618

-울산지방법원 2017.11.10 2017가단52773

-의정부지방법원 2016.11.30 2016가단18302