logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2016.10.21 2016가단16532
근저당권말소등기
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff operated B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “B”) until 1991.

Meanwhile, the Plaintiff’s wife accepted and operated limited partnership D(hereinafter “D”) established on February 16, 1990, and the Plaintiff was also involved in the operation of the said D.

B. B and D traded alcoholic beverages with “B” corporation, and the Plaintiff, as a surety, completed the registration of creation of each collateral on the real estate stated in the attached Tables 1 and 2 list owned by the Plaintiff as a collateral to secure the payment of liquor goods payment obligation to the said corporation for shipbuilding beer Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “registration of creation of each collateral of this case”).

C. At present, the title of the mortgagee of each of the instant mortgages was changed to the “Neiter Co., Ltd.”

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. Inasmuch as the Plaintiff’s title was changed to “Hail-ro Co., Ltd., a collateral security right holder of the establishment registration of each of the instant claims,” the Defendant, the Defendant, as the Defendant Company, is obligated to transfer the establishment registration of each of the instant claims to the Defendant Company. Meanwhile, the extinctive prescription of the liquor payment claim owned by the Defendant has expired, and thus, the Defendant’s obligation to cancel the registration is extinguished.

B. (1) According to the purport of the extinctive prescription period, the entry of No. 3, and the argument, D’s debt exemption from liability during the merger of No. 2, and D’s comprehensive license for alcoholic beverage wholesale business on the ground that “D supplied alcoholic beverages to a landowner and issued a false tax invoice as if D’s direct sales of alcoholic beverages to a customer who sold alcoholic beverages by a borrower” from the head of Seongbuk-do tax office on March 2, 2006.

arrow