beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) shall:
A. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) shall be fully paid KRW 3,738,767 and its related amount from February 8, 2017.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the main claim
A. On March 20, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendants did not have the obligation to borrow money against the Defendants. However, at the request of the Defendants and the Plaintiff’s father, the Defendants prepared each of the instant loans to the meaning of a water guarantee. On March 24, 2014, the Defendants concluded a mortgage contract with the Plaintiff as the debtor, and completed the registration of the establishment of each of the instant real estates owned by the Plaintiff.
However, the genuine intent of the parties in each of the above loan certificates and each of the mortgage contracts is a security for the plaintiff's obligation. Thus, in each of the above mortgage contracts, the declaration of intent of the plaintiff as the debtor is invalid as a false indication or a false conspiracy, and thus, the registration of establishment of each of the preceding mortgages of this case, which was made based on an invalid legal act as seen above, should be cancelled.
B. The expression of intent in the truth in the declaration of intention is not the expression of intent in a specific expression of intention, but the expression is not the expression of intent in the true mind. Thus, even if the expression of intent is not in the true mind, if the expression of intent is judged to be the best in the present situation, and the expression of intent is made in the absence of the intention in the deliberation of effect, it cannot be deemed as the expression of intention in the absence of the intention in the deliberation of effect.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Nu16059, Dec. 20, 1996). In addition, in order to establish a false declaration of intention, there should be an agreement between the other party and the other party as to the disagreement.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Da77772, Jun. 12, 2008). However, in the instant case, each of the evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 1 through 3 (including each number) is written.