(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.01.15 2013가단29420

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) 수원지방법원 2015.01.15 2013가단29420

근저당권말소등

Text

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The registration of ownership transfer was completed on July 30, 1994 with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 and 3, and on January 21, 2010 with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2, each Plaintiff’s name was completed, and on August 23, 2005 with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 4, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the Plaintiff’s name.

B. As to each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant real property”), the Suwon District Court, the Sungsung Branch of the Family Court, No. 10798, Jan. 27, 2010, the debtor C, the maximum debt amount of KRW 4550,500,000, the mortgagee, the mortgagee of the right to collateral security, was registered as the Defendant (hereinafter “instant collateral security”) and the ownership of buildings or other structures or trees, the duration of the ownership, the duration of 30 years, and the registration of creation of superficies (hereinafter “instant superficies”) with the Defendant on January 27, 2010, respectively.

C. After that, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on March 7, 2012 in the name of the Plaintiff B on March 7, 2012 with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 2 and 3.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 9 (including each number in case of additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

A. The plaintiffs believed that D would obtain a loan of each of the instant real estate as collateral and use it as development costs of Plaintiff A’s land including each of the instant real estate. At the time, the plaintiffs knew that D would set up the instant mortgage with the debtor as Plaintiff A under the status of deception, and prepared all documents necessary for registering the establishment of the instant mortgage, and did not intend to set up the mortgage with the debtor as C.

Therefore, the establishment registration of a new mortgage of this case was forged by the deception of D against the will of the plaintiffs.

유사 판례

-청주지방법원 2020.10.16 2017가단108172

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.05.14 2014나28250

-대구지방법원포항지원 2015.01.09 2014가합517

-수원지방법원평택지원 2015.09.23 2015가합856

-수원지방법원안양지원 2017.12.21 2016가합103878