beta
Text
1. The Defendants are the Busan District Court Branch Branch of the Dong Branch of the Busan District Court with respect to the real estate stated in the attached list.
Reasons
Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the argument in Gap evidence No. 1, the plaintiff set up a collateral security (hereinafter "mortgage") with respect to real estate stated in the attached list as collateral obligation with respect to the amount borrowed from H as to the real estate indicated in the attached list as collateral obligation and with the amount of debt KRW 24,00,000,000 with the maximum debt amount received on October 21, 1998, and the debtor, the debtor, and the mortgagee of the right to collateral security (hereinafter "mortgage of this case"), and H may recognize the fact that the inheritor died on November 8, 2007 and his children were the Defendants.
According to the above facts, it is obvious that the right to collateral security of this case has already expired the ten-year statute of limitations since the establishment date of the above right to collateral security or at least the expiration date of the ten-year statute of limitations. It is reasonable to view that the right to collateral security of this case has already expired.
Therefore, the Defendants, who are successors of the instant right to collateral security, are obligated to implement the procedure to cancel the registration of collateral security with respect to one-six shares, each of their respective inheritance shares, to the Plaintiff.
As to this, the Defendants asserted to the effect that they had the Plaintiff in order to obtain the repayment of the loan claim, but failed to receive the payment because their whereabouts were unknown, and thus, they cannot comply with the Plaintiff’s claim. However, the burden of proving the interruption of prescription, etc. is borne by the parties disputing the completion of the statute of limitations. The statute of limitations of the loan claim by the Defendants
It is difficult to see that the completion of the statute of limitations is contrary to the good faith principle, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
The defendants' arguments are not accepted.
In the end, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted for all reasons, and it is decided as per Disposition.