beta
Text
1. All appeals by the defendant against the plaintiffs are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
purport, purport, and.
Reasons
1. The reasoning for this part of the lower court’s reasoning is as follows: “No. 9, 2015.19”; “No. 1, 2016.11.9”; “No. 2” of the third part is the same as the first instance judgment, except for the case where “No. 1, 6, and evidence No. 8” is deemed to be “No. 1, 6,” and “No. 8” of the second part of the first instance judgment. Thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The parties' assertion
A. The plaintiffs asserted that the establishment registration of a new mortgage of this case was completed by false conspiracy between the deceased and the defendant, and thus, the secured debt should be cancelled because the secured debt did not occur.
B. On January 18, 2018, the Defendant asserted that the Defendant transferred the ownership of the first /2 share to the deceased’s living together with each of the instant real estate in the name of the Defendant and demanded the deceased to transfer the ownership of the said first /2 share to the Defendant. As the deceased transferred ownership after the following as a matter of tax, etc., the Defendant asserted that he prepared a loan certificate to secure the ownership and set up the instant collateral security interest to the Defendant.
Since July 6, 2018, the Defendant demanded that the deceased transfer ownership of 1/2 shares of each of the instant real estate in return for supporting the deceased, while maintaining a relationship similar to de facto marriage. The deceased promised to pay KRW 200 million to the Defendant on the grounds of taxes, etc., instead of transferring ownership of 1/2 shares, and argued that the Defendant prepared a loan certificate as collateral and set up the instant collateral security right.
3. In the event that the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage was completed, the registration is presumed to have been lawful and to have publicly announced the true state of rights, so there is a burden to prove the opposing facts to reverse the presumption of rights (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da72763, Apr. 10, 2001).