beta
Text
1. The defendant on October 9, 200 registered office of Suwon District Court with respect to the land size of 1,351 square meters in the wife population C, which is permitted to the plaintiff.
Reasons
1. According to the evidence evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the Plaintiff’s registration of creation of a mortgage over the maximum debt amount of KRW 84 million against the Defendant as a mortgagee on October 9, 200 with respect to the wife population C 1,351 square meters, which is the Plaintiff’s ownership, may be acknowledged on October 9, 200, and the establishment of a mortgage over the maximum debt amount of KRW 84 million against the Defendant as a mortgagee (hereinafter “instant mortgage”).
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion ① did not borrow money from the Defendant, and there was no secured debt of the instant right to collateral security, and ② even if there was a secured debt, the secured debt of the instant right to collateral security has expired ten years.
Therefore, the right to collateral security of this case must be cancelled.
B. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings as to the non-existence of secured claim Gap's evidence Nos. 2, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 6, D determined that on February 28, 1998, the Plaintiff's husband Eul lent KRW 60,70,000 as interest rate No. 2.5%, D transferred the above claim to F on July 27, 1998, and notified E of the transfer by content-certified mail on February 1, 1999; Eul applied for provisional attachment of the above claim as preserved right and completed provisional attachment registration on March 15, 1999; Eul concluded a mortgage contract with the Plaintiff on February 1, 199; and Eul concluded a mortgage contract with the Plaintiff on March 15, 199; and the Plaintiff, who was the Plaintiff, was the Plaintiff's mother on March 20, 200.
According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff created the instant collateral security right against the Defendant, who acquired the claim from F while jointly assuming the debt owed by E, one’s husband, for whom the Plaintiff acquired the claim from F. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion that there is no collateral obligation is groundless.
(c).