logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 장흥지원 2017.01.11 2016가단913
근저당권설정등기 말소등기 이행청구의 소
Text

1. The defendant shall accept to B the Gwangju District Court on September 28, 2005 with respect to the 1,877.9m2 in Jeonnam-gun, Jeonnam-gun.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On June 29, 2016, the Plaintiff commenced the demanding procedure against B for the payment of the amount of KRW 40,439,055 and the amount of delay damages for the Gwangju District Court’s Maritime District Court’s 201Hu401, the Plaintiff received the payment order on June 29, 2016, and the said payment order was finalized on July 19, 2016.

B. B, while owning the land of 15,877.9m2 (hereinafter “the instant real estate”), on September 28, 2005, the B completed the registration of creation of a mortgage (hereinafter “mortgage of this case”) with respect to the instant real estate, the maximum debt amount of KRW 15 million, which was based on the contract signed by the Defendant on September 27, 2005, in the future, on September 28, 2005.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts based on the determination on the cause of the claim, the Defendant loaned money to B and did not repay it. On September 28, 2005, the Defendant established the instant right to collateral security with the above loan claims as the secured claim. The instant right to collateral security has expired after the lapse of ten years from September 28, 2005 and October 10, 2015, since the right to collateral security of the instant case was determined to have expired, the instant right to collateral security also expired in accordance with the appendant nature of the right to collateral security.

Therefore, the defendant has a duty to cancel the right to collateral security of this case to B upon the plaintiff's request by subrogation as the creditor of B, unless there are special circumstances.

3. In conclusion, the claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating Justices.

arrow