2013da81383 Registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage and cancellation of a pledge right to collateral security.

A

1. B

2. C

January 10, 2014

February 14, 2014

1. As to the real estate listed in the separate sheet to the Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B: (a) performed the procedure for registration of cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage completed on February 20, 2012 by the Seoul Central District Court No. 34314;

B. Defendant C expressed his intention of acceptance on the registration of cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage as stated in the above A.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Determination as to the claim against Defendant B

(a) Description of the claim;

The reasons for the attached Form shall be as shown in the attached Form.

(b) Judgment by service (Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act);

2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant C

A. Determination on the cause of the claim

In full view of the facts stated in Gap 1, 2, and 3 as a whole, the plaintiff was loaned KRW 20 million from the defendant corporation Eul (hereinafter "the defendant corporation") on February 20, 2012, and the claims for loans were secured, and the registration of establishment of a mortgage over KRW 30 million was completed on February 20, 2012 with the Seoul Central District Court registry No. 34314, the registration of establishment of a mortgage over KRW 30 million (hereinafter "the establishment of a mortgage over this case"). The plaintiff was transferred KRW 18,330,000,00,000 to the defendant corporation, which was not subject to the registration of establishment of a mortgage over KRW 500,000,000,000,000 to the defendant corporation as the collateral security right over KRW 3,000,000,0000,000,0000 was revoked on January 21, 2013.

B. Determination as to Defendant C’s assertion

On February 23, 2012, Defendant C lent KRW 20 million to the Defendant Company as interest rate of 2.5%, and entered into a pledge agreement for the security of the loan claim, and received additional registration of the pledge on the establishment registration of the establishment of the principal and interest of the instant loan. Defendant C still did not pay the principal and interest of the loan, and thus, Defendant C cannot accept the Plaintiff’s claim. However, Defendant C’s assertion is without merit since the aforementioned circumstance does not constitute a justifiable ground for refusing the Plaintiff’s claim.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all.

Judges fixed-scale

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.