logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.11.24 2016나3659
근저당권설정등기말소
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. Basic facts

A. On December 18, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against B with the Seoul Central District Court 2014Gaso661, and was sentenced by the above court to the effect that “B shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 12,238,884 and any delay delay thereof,” and the above judgment became final and conclusive on January 17, 2015.

B. On the other hand, on July 21, 1997, B completed on July 21, 1997 the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter “registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage”) with respect to the share of real estate in the attached list (hereinafter “the instant real estate”) to the Defendant on July 21, 1997, which is KRW 100,000,000, the Cheongju District Court, as the receipt of No. 27057, Jul. 21, 1997, for the Cheongju District Court’s Chungcheong Branch

C. B does not have any property other than the above real estate as of the date of the closing of the argument in this case, and the defendant is the sentence B.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, each entry of Gap Nos. 1 and 2 (including additional numbers), witness B’s partial testimony, and the purport of whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff sought cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the neighboring mortgage of this case by subrogation of the defendant for the following reasons.

1) The registration of the establishment of a mortgage of this case is an invalid registration that does not exist the secured debt. 2) Even if the registration of the establishment of a mortgage of this case is not null and void, since the secured debt of this case was extinguished after the lapse of 10 years from July 21, 1997, the registration of the establishment of a mortgage of this case is also null and void in accordance with the nature of the collateral security.

B. The Defendant’s assertion 1) lent KRW 30,00,000 to the wife B around 1997, and the Defendant completed the registration of establishment of the instant real estate owned by B for the purpose of securing the above loan claims. (2) Meanwhile, B paid KRW 5,00,000 to the Defendant around April 30, 2005, and KRW 1,00,000,000 to the Defendant around May 4, 2007, and paid the said loan to the Defendant in part.

arrow