logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원목포지원 2019.02.27 2018가단3944
저당권설정등기말소
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. On August 19, 1994, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of donation on December 10, 1985 with respect to 349 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. On October 1, 1997, the registration of establishment of a mortgage on the land of this case was completed on October 1, 1997, 2 million won of the claim amount, the debtor, the plaintiff, and the mortgagee as the defendant.

(hereinafter “the mortgage of this case” or “the establishment registration of the mortgage of this case”). [No dispute is brought about, entry of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.]

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion did not grant the Defendant the instant mortgage.

In addition, the secured claim of the mortgage of this case has already been completed and expired.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the instant mortgage.

B. (1) According to the overall purport of the statement and argument as to the establishment of the secured claim of the instant mortgage Nos. 1 through 6 (including the number of branch numbers), the Plaintiff’s attachment D sold the instant land to the Defendant on September 12, 1997 on behalf of the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant sales contract”), and during that process, the Plaintiff issued documents necessary for the instant sales contract, such as the sales contract and the certificate of personal seal impression for real estate sales, on which the Plaintiff affixed his seal to D, and the Defendant completed the registration of establishment of the instant land instead of completing the registration of ownership transfer according to the instant sales contract.

According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that D has the authority to sell the land of this case on behalf of the plaintiff, and therefore, the effect of the sales contract of this case extends to the plaintiff.

On the other hand, the registration of the establishment of a mortgage of this case was completed in order to secure the claim for the refund of the purchase price in preparation for the invalidation or cancellation.

arrow