Plaintiff

Defendant

May 7, 2010

Busan District Court Decision 2008Gadan35762 Decided October 8, 2009

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. It is confirmed that there is no secured obligation of the Plaintiff against the Defendant on September 7, 2001 following the registration office of the Gangseo-gu Busan District Court with respect to the portion of 3,290/47,570 out of the 4,757§³ of Gangseo-dong, Gangseo-gu, Busan Metropolitan City.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Judgment on the Defendant’s main defense

The Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the right to collateral security (hereinafter “instant right to collateral security”) recorded in the text, but the judgment against the Defendant became final and conclusive, and accordingly, asserts that the instant lawsuit is unlawful against the res judicata effect of the said final and conclusive judgment.

On the other hand, the subject matter of a lawsuit seeking cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage is the existence of the right to claim cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage, and therefore the res judicata of the judgment does not affect the existence of the secured debt. Therefore, the defendant's defense

2. Judgment on the merits

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff only traded money with the non-party 1, who is the defendant, and did not engage in monetary transactions with the defendant. Thus, there is no secured debt of the right to collateral security of this case, the defendant as the creditor. Even if it is not a domestic affairs, the above obligation was fully repaid.

B. Judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion

Therefore, whether the secured debt itself occurred between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. According to the evidence No. 1, No. 2, and No. 46, it can be acknowledged that the mortgagee of the mortgage establishment registration of this case was the Defendant’s name, and the loan certificate No. 1 through No. 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, 46, and 80 through 117, the Plaintiff’s testimony as to the above secured debt No. 1 and the Defendant’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s non-party 6’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s non-party 2’s non-party 2’s non-party 7’s non-party 1’s own debt.

C. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

On the other hand, the defendant asserts to the purport that the plaintiff's claim of this case is unjustifiable, since the non-party 1, one's own fat money, has the money to receive to the plaintiff. However, even if the non-party 1 remains a claim against the plaintiff, it cannot be asserted that the plaintiff's obligation to the defendant remains. Thus, the defendant's above argument is

3. Conclusion

Therefore, as long as there is no secured debt based on the registration of creation of a new mortgage against the defendant, and the defendant is dissatisfied with this, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted as reasonable, and the judgment of the court of first instance, which has different conclusions, is unfair, so it is so decided as per Disposition by cancelling this and accepting the plaintiff's claim.

Judges Long-line (Presiding Judge) Kim Young-chul