beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff:
A. Defendant B shall have jurisdiction over the Busan District Court's Dong Branch on March 12, 1992 with respect to the area of 367 square meters in Busan District Court D, Busan District Court.
Reasons
1. In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings as to Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3, the plaintiff completed the registration of creation of a mortgage as the maximum debt amount of 12,00,000,000 won, the debtor, and the mortgagee B due to the contract on February 29, 1992 as to D, Busan-gun, Busan-gun, for which the plaintiff and the mortgagee B completed the registration of creation of a mortgage on March 12, 1992. The plaintiff also recognized that the plaintiff filed a registration of creation of a mortgage with the defendant C as the maximum debt amount of 30,00,000,000,000 won, the debtor, and the plaintiff as the mortgagee and the mortgagee as the defendant Eul for the contract on November 10, 1998, each of which is 1,795 square meters and 826,000 square meters as of the Busan-gun E-gun, Busan-gun, Busan-do, and the defendant C as the mortgagee of a mortgage.
2. Determination
A. The extinctive prescription of a claim regarding the cause of the claim is completed unless the claim is exercised within 10 years (Article 162(1) of the Civil Act); if the secured claim is extinguished, the right to collateral security is naturally extinguished according to the nature of the appendant; and the establishment registration of a mortgage near the secured claim becomes void
In light of the above legal principles, the secured debt of each of the instant mortgages was completed 10 years after the date of the registration of establishment of each of the instant mortgages, and each of the said secured mortgages was extinguished in accordance with the principle of the appendant nature. Thus, the registration of establishment of each of the above secured mortgages is deemed null and void.
Therefore, the Defendants are obligated to implement the procedure for cancellation of registration of cancellation of the establishment registration of each of the instant establishments.
B. As to the Defendant C’s assertion, the Defendant C asserted that the extinctive prescription was interrupted by accepting the Plaintiff’s debt around 2001, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it, and the above Defendant’s assertion is not accepted.
3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is justified and acceptable.