(영문) 청주지방법원 2019.09.25 2017가단108721

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) 청주지방법원 2019.09.25 2017가단108721

근저당권말소

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. C is the owner of each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”). On July 3, 2003, C concluded a joint collateral agreement of KRW 47,000,000 with the Defendant regarding each of the instant real estate as joint collateral. On July 4, 2003, C completed the registration of creation of the right to collateral security (hereinafter “instant right to collateral security”) under the receipt No. 6316, Jul. 4, 2003, as well as the registration of the establishment of the right to collateral security (hereinafter “instant right”).

B. After that, on April 5, 2017, the Defendant filed an application for the instant real estate auction with the Youngcheon District Court, Youngcheon District Court, and commenced the auction procedure. On June 27, 2018, the Defendant distributed KRW 47,000 to the Defendant, who is the mortgagee of the instant case, and received the dividends therefrom.

C. Meanwhile, on July 17, 2008, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against C to pay to the plaintiff 17,163,897 won and 9,740,452 won with 17% interest per annum from September 4, 2007 to the date of full payment. The judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

Each real estate of this case is the only real estate of C, and C is in excess of its obligation.

[Grounds for recognition] Evidence Nos. 1-1 to 9-1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion of the cause of the claim did not incur the secured debt of the instant right to collateral security or the ten-year extinctive prescription has expired.

Therefore, even though there is no secured debt of the instant right to collateral security, since the Defendant received dividends of KRW 47,00,000 based on the instant right to collateral security, it shall be returned to C with unjust enrichment.

The plaintiff, as a creditor of C, shall make the claim of this case in subrogation of C.

B. In full view of the description of No. 2 and the purport of the entire pleadings as to whether the secured obligation occurred, C shall be deemed as having the entire purport of the argument.

유사 판례

-춘천지방법원영월지원 2016.05.26 2016가합13

-춘천지방법원영월지원 2019.04.10 2018가단1983

-창원지방법원마산지원 2019.01.17 2018가단100567

-서울고등법원 (인천) 2021.04.22 2020나10143

-대전지방법원천안지원 2015.09.10 2014가단13460