beta
Text
1. The defendant received on July 10, 1998 from the Daejeon District Court, Seosan Branch on the following real estate from the plaintiff:
Reasons
1. According to the overall purport of the statements and arguments by Gap evidence Nos. 1-1 and 2 of the facts of recognition, the plaintiff is ordered to do so.
(a).
The facts that the owner of each of the real estate stated in the subsection (hereinafter “instant real estate”) is the owner of the instant real estate; E, as to the instant real estate, completed the registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter “registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage”) as the Daejeon District Court’s Branch No. 19514, July 10, 1998; and the Defendant may recognize the fact that the instant real estate was completed with the registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage as the receipt of the final claim on June 24, 2013 by the Seosan Branch Branch of the Daejeon District Court as the receipt of the final claim transfer as of
2. Determination of the right to collateral security is a mortgage established by setting only the maximum amount of the debt to be secured and reserving the determination of an obligation in the future (Article 357(1) of the Civil Act). Since multiple and unspecified claims arising from continuous transactions are established for the purpose of securing a certain limit in a settlement term in the future, there is a legal act establishing a secured claim of the right to collateral security, separate from the act of establishing the right to collateral security, and the burden of proving whether there was a legal act establishing the secured claim of the right to collateral security at the time the right to collateral
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da107408, Apr. 28, 2011). The Defendant submitted the evidence of the secured claim No. 1 through No. 4 as evidence for the secured claim. However, insofar as objective evidence, such as financial data, is not submitted, it is insufficient to recognize that E was actually lent to F while paying KRW 4.5 million, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.
Even if the secured claim exists, it is reasonable to view that the extinctive prescription of the secured claim in this case has expired in the absence of any evidence to deem that E or the Defendant exercised the secured claim after the establishment registration of the mortgage of this case was completed or after February 15, 1998.
Ultimately, in some respects.