(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.06.20 2018나73739

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.06.20 2018나73739

대여금

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following additional determination as to the Defendant’s assertion, and thus, it is accepted by the main sentence of Article

2. Additional determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant's right to collateral security against the motor vehicle of this case is entitled to recover the loans immediately after the exercise of the above right to collateral security. Thus, there is no legal interest in receiving a separate enforcement title by filing a lawsuit claiming loans against the defendant.

The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed as unlawful.

B. Whether to exercise the right to collateral security belongs to the freedom of the mortgagee’s right to collateral security.

Furthermore, the witness G of the first instance court testified that “Shee was suffering from the Cheongju Police Station after hearing information on the side of the resting point and issuing an order to stop the operation of the Cheongju Police Station, and he proceeded with the voluntary auction, but the vehicle was already in the state of not delivering it again to a third party at the Cheongju Police Station,” and the plaintiff seems to have been in progress of the voluntary auction for the execution of the right to collateral security.

Even if the Plaintiff is unable to proceed with a voluntary auction to exercise the security right due to the lack of the location of the instant vehicle, and even if it is necessary to exercise the security right, it is difficult to readily conclude that the amount of dividend due to the auction of the instant automobile (2007 b.g., the 2007 b.) which was depreciation after the instant loan was executed is sufficient

(See legal brief dated May 14, 2019). Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion, the first instance judgment is justifiable.

The defendant's appeal is dismissed for lack of reason.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-춘천지방법원강릉지원 2020.07.15 2019가단37713

-수원지방법원 2019.01.15 2018나6515

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.05.03 2015나61285

-대법원 2010. 6. 24. 선고 2010다14599 판결

-춘천지방법원원주지원 2014.01.21 2013가단4776