beta
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 reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows, except for the addition of the following '2. Additional Judgment' as to the assertion that the plaintiff emphasizes or adds to this court, and thus, the same shall apply to the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance.
2. Additional determination
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is merely to secure a loan claim of KRW 300,000,000 against H’s H’s D, and as the Plaintiff’s secured claim against D does not exist as it is null and void due to the lack of secured claim against H, the registration of creation of the instant secured claim should also be cancelled as a matter of course.
B. Determination 1) In the event that a mortgage is created by providing real estate owned by an obligor as collateral for the purpose of securing a claim, the Plaintiff’s claim as collateral of the instant mortgage is insufficient to acknowledge that there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. 2) In addition, in the event that a mortgage is created by providing real estate owned by an obligor as collateral for the purpose of securing a claim, in principle, the relevant claim and mortgage cannot be set differently in light of the principle of the appendantness of the security right, but there was an agreement between the obligee, the obligor, and the third party on the registration of the mortgage in the name of a third party. Furthermore, in special circumstances where it may be deemed that the claim was actually attributed to the third party, or in light of the transaction circumstances, the third party is able to receive the claim effective from the obligor, and the third party is also able to obtain the repayment of the debt from the obligor and the debtor can be deemed to have an indivisible relationship between the obligee and the third party, who is the owner of the mortgage or the mortgagee, even if so, the registration of the mortgage in its name is also valid (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da.