(영문) 대구지방법원 2017.10.18 2017나307250

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 대구지방법원 2017.10.18 2017나307250

근저당권말소

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

3. Section 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance is applicable.

Reasons

1. In the first instance court, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for the cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage and the conjunctive claim for the cancellation of the fraudulent act. The first instance court dismissed the primary claim against the Defendant and accepted the conjunctive claim.

Since an appeal has been filed against the part against the defendant only, this Court shall decide only on the conjunctive claim.

2. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation concerning the instant case is as follows, and the Defendant’s assertion added to the instant case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the following determination as to the allegations raised in the trial, thereby citing it as is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Parts used or added;

A. Of the first instance judgment, the first instance court held that "C" of the first instance judgment was "D," respectively, and "as of the third party 4, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 18, 21, 5, 4, 1, 3, 7, 9, 9, 10, 11, 20, 21, 7, 20, 7, 12, 21, 7, 12, 7, 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 9 "as of the third party 3, 4, 9, 11, 4, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 18, 21, 5, 6, 61, 6, 4, 3, 5, and 9, 3, 3, 2014" and "as of the third 3rd party 12, 4.

B. On the 5th page of the first instance judgment, the following is added.

"On the other hand, according to the statements in subparagraphs 6-1 and 2 of Eul evidence 6-2, even though the defendant was found to have submitted a registration certificate concerning the real estate of this case at the trial of the court, it cannot be deemed that Eul continued to keep the above registration certificate in custody by the defendant (the defendant did not at all assert the above registration certificate in the court of first instance), and D cannot be deemed to have approved the obligation to borrow money to the defendant."

C. We examine the judgment of the court of first instance.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2019.02.19 2018나2031352

-대구지방법원 2017.07.12 2016나11125

-대구지방법원 2017.09.20 2017나300679

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.09.07 2015나71893

-광주지방법원 2017.11.24 2016나61449