beta
Text
1. The defendant received on April 1, 200 from the plaintiff on the 545 square meters of the warehouse site in Gangseo-si, Seocheon District Court, Gangwon-do.
Reasons
1. In the absence of dispute, the fact that the establishment registration of a mortgage (hereinafter “mortgage of this case”) was completed with respect to the storage site C, 545 square meters in Gangnam-si, the maximum debt amount of 40 million won, and the fact that the establishment registration of a mortgage (hereinafter “mortgage of this case”) entered
2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is the cause of the instant claim. The Plaintiff asserted for the cancellation of the instant right to collateral on the ground that, even if the instant right to collateral was either a false conspiracy or a registration of invalidity of cause established without any relationship of a loan for consumption between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the ten-year extinctive prescription has expired, the Defendant leased KRW 2.5 million to the Plaintiff, and the Defendant created the instant right to collateral as a collateral, and the extinctive prescription was suspended due to the Defendant’s debt approval.
3. Determination
A. First of all, it is not sufficient to recognize that the mortgage of this case was caused by the false conspiracy alone with the health mark and the evidence of the plaintiff's submission, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
B. Next, as to whether the instant mortgage is null and void as it was established in the absence of a loan for consumption between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the term “mortgage” refers to a mortgage established by settling only the maximum amount of the claim to be secured and reserving the determination of the obligation in the future. In this case, the extinction or transfer of the obligation until the secured obligation is determined does not affect the right of collateral (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da47528, Nov. 9, 2001). Even if there was no loan for consumption between the Plaintiff and the Defendant at the time of the establishment of the right of collateral, the right
Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.
However, the plaintiff's claim for cancellation of the right to collateral security is terminated.