(영문) 부산지방법원동부지원 2019.08.22 2019가단201404

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) 부산지방법원동부지원 2019.08.22 2019가단201404

근저당권말소

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

Facts of recognition

On November 9, 2018, the fact that the Plaintiff completed the registration of the instant right to collateral security with respect to the instant real estate to the Defendant, who is the private village of November 9, 2018, is not a dispute between the parties concerned.

The judgment on the cause of the claim is based on the following grounds: (a) the Defendant invested KRW 100 million in the shopping mall business of Nonparty C with his own introduction, but was unable to recover it; (b) the Defendant and his husband D have completed the registration of the instant right to collateral security by requiring the Plaintiff to prepare a written agreement on collateral security; (c) the registration of the instant right to collateral security is null and void because there is no secured debt; and (d) even if not, the agreement on collateral security was made by coercion and mistake, and thus, the registration of the instant right to collateral security is revoked.

However, in full view of all the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, it is insufficient to acknowledge the above assertion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, according to the statements in Gap 8, Eul 1, and 5, the defendant actively recommended and obtained opinions from the defendant, who works for the head of a licensed real estate agent office, and made investments in the shopping mall business. On November 9, 2018, the problem of Eul's shopping mall business arises, and the plaintiff and the defendant directly visited the attorney's office and confirmed that they are the same as the plaintiff, and affixed a seal to the unmanned. Thus, it is deemed that the defendant expressed his/her intent to bear responsibility for the loss of the plaintiff's investment amount, and completed the registration of the mortgage of this case according to the mortgage contract.

Therefore, it is difficult to accept the Plaintiff’s claim.

3. The plaintiff's conclusion of this case.

유사 판례

-창원지방법원 2015.08.18 2014가단14439

-대구지방법원안동지원 2014.06.25 2013가단6247

-부산지방법원동부지원 2019.12.05 2019가단6074

-인천지방법원부천지원 2016.06.16 2016가단2118

-창원지방법원 마산지원 2021.04.29 2020가단2321