(영문) 대구지방법원 2019.10.10 2019가단7935

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) 대구지방법원 2019.10.10 2019가단7935

근저당권말소등기

Text

1. The Defendant received on November 17, 1981 from the Daegu District Court about the Plaintiff’s 308 square meters with respect to the 308 square meters in the Gyeongdong-gun, Seogdong-gun.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff’s Mamo-gun, Gyeongbuk-gun, C, 308 square meters (hereinafter “instant real estate”), was owned by Chomo-do.

B. In borrowing money from the Defendant, the above D had set up a mortgage on the instant real estate as a collateral. Accordingly, the registration of the establishment of a collateral (hereinafter “registration of the establishment of a collateral”) was completed on November 17, 1981 with the Daegu District Court No. 18775, which received on November 17, 1981, the Defendant was the mortgagee, and the maximum debt amount was KRW 3,500,000 (hereinafter “the registration of the establishment of a mortgage on the instant real estate”).

C. On January 1, 1990, the above D donated the instant real estate to the Plaintiff, a grandchild, and on the ground of this on June 16, 2008, the ownership transfer registration was completed in the future for the instant real estate.

The repayment period was not set separately for E’s loan obligations, which is the secured debt of the establishment registration of the neighboring mortgage of this case.

【Ground for recognition】 The entry of evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the Plaintiff’s assertion and the above facts of recognition, the statute of limitations expired since the loan obligations against the Defendant, which is the secured debt of the registration of the establishment of the instant mortgage, was ten years since the date of occurrence.

In addition, the plaintiff (which is the owner of the real estate in this case which has been mortgaged as the secured mortgage) may use the defense of extinctive prescription for his own interest.

Thus, since the registration of establishment of a new mortgage of this case was invalid due to the extinction of the statute of limitations of the secured debt, the defendant is obligated to cancel the registration of establishment of a new mortgage of this case to the plaintiff as the owner of the real estate of this case

3. Conclusion, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case is legitimate and accepted.

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 2021.04.21 2020가단9890

-춘천지방법원강릉지원 2016.11.02 2016가단4163

-부산지방법원 서부지원 2018.12.11 2018가단102735

-부산지방법원동부지원 2015.04.30 2014가단14742

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.06.24 2015가단163098