beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. On March 26, 2010, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 20,000,000 from the deceased C, and completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage on the instant real estate in order to secure the said loan obligation. The Plaintiff paid KRW 10,000,000, around February 26, 2013 through D, an agent, and repaid KRW 10,000,000, respectively, and all of the collateral obligations of the said right to collateral security were extinguished.
Therefore, the plaintiff seeks cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the above neighboring mortgage and confirmation of the existence of the plaintiff's debt against the defendant as the heir of the network C.
2. On March 26, 2010, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 20,000,00 from the Defendant at an interest rate of 2% per month, and there is no dispute between the parties. According to the evidence No. 1-1, in order to secure the above loan obligation on the same day, the Plaintiff may recognize the fact that the Plaintiff completed the registration of the establishment of a mortgage on the instant real estate with the net C, the maximum debt amount of KRW 25,00,000, and the amount of KRW 25,000 with the debtor.
However, as shown in the Plaintiff’s assertion of repayment, it is difficult to believe that Gap evidence Nos. 3 and witness evidence Nos. 4 through 6 (including paper numbers) were insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff paid a total of KRW 20,000,000 through D, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
Rather, at the time of delivering KRW 10,00,000 received from the Plaintiff to E on February 26, 2013, witness D testified that E and the network C were not h, but E was not in a situation where E was able to know the account number of the network C, and according to the evidence evidence evidence evidence evidence evidence No. 4, E may be acknowledged that it remitted KRW 9,50,000 to the network C on September 28, 2012. In light of such circumstances, witness witness witness witness witness witness witness witness testimony is insufficient, and each evidence and all arguments are recognized based on the purport of the whole evidence and arguments as mentioned above, namely, when the Plaintiff paid KRW 20,000,000 to the Plaintiff through D through D, it is necessary to prepare a receipt from D or network C, or to register collateral security.