logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원원주지원 2017.09.26 2016가단6728
근저당권설정말소등기 청구
Text

1. The defendant shall receive from B on October 2, 1992 the original state branch of the Chuncheon District Court with respect to the 61,190 square meters of C Forest land in Kuju-si.

Reasons

Facts of recognition

The following facts can be acknowledged according to the respective statements in Gap evidence 1 through 4, the response to financial transaction information of the Korea Credit Information Institute, the response to each fact-finding by Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

On June 27, 2008, the Plaintiff filed an order with the Seoul Northern District Court No. 2008Guj5842 to pay the Plaintiff a credit card fee, its interest, commission, and late payment charge, and on June 27, 2008, the same court ordered the Plaintiff to pay “B shall pay to the Plaintiff 4,586,542 won and 18,353,674 won with 28% interest per annum from June 21, 2008 to the date of full payment,” and the above payment order was finalized around that time.

B. B created the right to collateral security of KRW 9,900,000 on October 2, 1992, and KRW 50,000,000 on February 17, 1993 (hereinafter “each of the instant collateral security rights”), respectively, with respect to the Defendant’s forest land C, 61,190 square meters for the purpose of securing the Defendant’s claim for the Defendant’s loan against B, respectively.

The maturity of the Defendant’s loan claims against B seems to be the starting point of each of the instant mortgage claims.

C. B is a debt excess status as of the date of the closing of the instant argument.

Judgment

According to the above facts, the plaintiff has claims against B, such as credit card use fee, etc., and B is in the insolvent of debt excess.

In addition, since it is apparent that 10 years have elapsed since the Defendant’s loan claim against B was due, the Defendant’s loan claim against B, which is the secured obligation of each of the instant collateral security claims, expired by the statute of limitations.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to perform the procedure for cancellation registration of each of the instant collateral security upon the plaintiff's subrogation request.

In conclusion, the claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow