(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.05.24 2017나68684

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) 수원지방법원 2018.05.24 2017나68684

배당이의

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is as follows, except where the plaintiff makes a decision as to the assertion added to the grounds for appeal, and thus, it is consistent with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The Plaintiff asserts that, in light of the nature of limited collateral security, the above contract to establish a collateral is null and void, since the Plaintiff did not enter the type of the agreement or transaction that became a secured obligation in the second-class mortgage contract concluded on April 14, 2014 between the Korean bank and the non-party company.

Unless there exist any special circumstances, a contract to establish a mortgage shall be interpreted in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract, as it is a disposal document. However, even if the contract term is uniformly printed and used by a financial institution, etc. in the form of a general transaction agreement, if the contract term comprehensively stated the scope of the secured obligation in light of various circumstances, such as the background leading up to the conclusion of the contract to establish the loan obligation and the future obligation, such as the background leading up to the establishment of the loan obligation and the future obligation, the relationship between each obligation and the maximum debt amount, and the existence of separate security for other obligation, it shall be deemed that the comprehensive statement on the secured obligation of the above contract is merely an example of a general transaction agreement printed in the same text and thus, its binding force may be ruled out (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2001Da36962, Sept. 18, 200; 203Da2109, Mar. 14, 2003).

Furthermore, according to the above facts of recognition, the second order is given.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

참조판례

-대법원 2001. 9. 18. 선고 2001다36962 판결

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2020.09.03 2019나96225

-서울고등법원 2017.06.16 2016나9577

-대법원 1990. 7. 10. 선고 89다카12152 판결

-수원지방법원 2020.09.16 2019나81360

-대법원 1997. 9. 26. 선고 97다22768 판결