Whether consent to the registration of cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage is expressed if no bonds have already been extinguished before seizure;

Inasmuch as a claim had not existed due to the extinguishment before seizure, the declaration of consent should be made on the registration of cancellation of the establishment registration of the neighboring real estate of this case.

Civil Procedure Act

2016 Ghana 85589 De-mortgage

A Kim A

United States AA and 1

on October 23, 2017

on October 13, 2017

1. Defendant Park Jong-A shall implement the procedure for the cancellation registration of the registration of the creation of collateral security completed by No. 100421 of the receipt of August 7, 2007 with respect to the real estate listed in the attached list to the Plaintiff.

2. Defendant AA expressed his/her intention to accept the registration of cancellation of the establishment registration of a new mortgage as stated in paragraph (1) to the Plaintiff.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Defendants.

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts recognized;

The Plaintiff owned the “17.62m2 square meters of a house of 17.62m2 on the ground of 314m2 of AAAA Dong, but the housing site development project was implemented in a single unit of the said real estate, and the Plaintiff acquired the right to purchase a house in addition to compensation (hereinafter referred to as “the right to purchase a house in this case”).

On June 1, 2007, the Plaintiff transferred the instant number of real estate to Defendant LA in KRW 125 million. In order to secure Defendant LA’s right to purchase, the Plaintiff completed the registration of the establishment of a mortgage on August 7, 2007 with the maximum debt amount of KRW 180 million with respect to the real estate listed in the attached list (hereinafter “the instant real estate”).

Since then, around 2009, Defendant ParkA transferred the instant water ownership to the head of the Dong, and the head of the Dong sold one apartment bond (25 AAA Gu, 25 AA Dong 22 complex AA), based on the instant water ownership.

On the other hand, on August 11, 2016, Defendant LA seized Defendant LA’s claims against the right to collateral security regarding the instant real estate based on the taxation claim, including the value added tax, against Defendant LA on August 11, 2016, and on August 16, 2016, the record registration of the above attachment was completed.

2. Determination

According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff created a collateral on the instant real estate in order to secure the realization of the right to sell the instant water in the course of transferring the instant water ownership to the Defendant Park Jong-A, and that the last purchaser of the instant water ownership had extinguished all of the Plaintiff’s obligations against the Defendant Park Park-A in accordance with the fact that he was normally sold in the capacity of the right holder. As such, the collateral on the instant real estate in the name of the Defendant Park Park-A with respect to the instant

On the other hand, although the defendant Park Jong-A seized the claims against the plaintiff of Park Jong-A against the plaintiff as a collateral against the plaintiff, the claims against the plaintiff of the defendant Park Jong-A were not extinguished before the seizure, so the defendant Park Jong-A should express his/her consent to the cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a collateral against the plaintiff in the name of the defendant Park Jong-A as to the real estate in this case.