logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원부천지원 2017.10.27 2017가단4104
근저당권설정등기말소
Text

1. The Defendant received on December 6, 2010 from the Incheon District Court Branch for the real estate stated in the attached list from the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 6, 2010, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 9,000,00 from Geumho Capital Loans Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) and granted the Nonparty Company a right to collateral security (hereinafter “instant right to collateral security”) as stated in the [Attachment List] to the real estate owned by the Plaintiff.

B. On August 26, 2011, the Defendant, the object of which was credit business, accepted the instant contract to establish a mortgage from the non-party company, and completed the additional registration of the transfer of the right to collateral security as the Incheon District Court Branch Decision 94171, Sept. 6, 201, regarding the instant right to collateral security.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. 1) The Plaintiff asserts that the secured debt of the instant case was fully repaid, and that the Defendant sought the cancellation of the instant secured debt by asserting that the secured debt of the instant secured debt was extinguished by prescription. 2) As to this, the Defendant did not have received reimbursement from the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff promised to pay the secured debt of the instant secured debt to the Defendant after delivery of a copy of the complaint of the instant case, and thus, the extinctive prescription was interrupted by the approval of the obligation.

B. 1) The statement of evidence No. 1 on the main cause of claim No. 1 alone is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff repaid the secured claim of the instant right to collateral security to the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise, the Plaintiff’s primary cause of claim is without merit. 2) If a claim arising from a commercial activity is not exercised for five years, the extinctive prescription is completed (Article 64 of the Commercial Act, as well as a claim arising from an act that acts as a commercial activity with both parties as well as a claim arising from a commercial activity, as well as a claim arising from an act that acts as a commercial activity with respect to one of the parties.

arrow