(영문) 대전지방법원서산지원 2019.07.17 2018가단55239

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) 대전지방법원서산지원 2019.07.17 2018가단55239

근저당권말소

Text

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The following facts can be acknowledged according to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2.

The Plaintiff filed an order for payment (Seoul Central District Court 2010 tea192509) with G to pay the amount of KRW 17,591,917 and KRW 6,768,935 among them, to the Plaintiff at the rate of 17% per annum from December 8, 2010 to the date of full payment, and the above order for payment was finalized on January 6, 2011.

B. Meanwhile, with respect to the instant real estate owned by G, the registration of the establishment of the following neighboring mortgage (hereinafter “registration of establishment of the instant real estate”) was completed in the name of the Defendants: (a) the debtor G and the Daejeon District Court of the Daejeon District Court (hereinafter “the registration of establishment of the instant real estate”) and the individual right to collateral security was indicated only

Serial The maximum debt amount of the mortgagee who created and received the right to collateral security on January 21, 2002 shall be KRW 1301,00,000,000 as of November 23, 2006, when the contract was concluded on July 20, 2006, and KRW 13,000,000,000 as of November 22, 2002, when the contract was concluded on November 22, 2002, Defendant B, who transferred the right to collateral security, KRW 13,00,000,000 as of November 1, 19973 as of November 31, 2007, KRW 45,200,000,000 as of October 9, 2003.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserted by the parties that G had completed the registration of the establishment of the establishment of the neighboring mortgage of this case in the future of the defendants without any grounds for evading the compulsory execution by G's creditors, which is null and void as a right of collateral based on false representation in conspiracy. Even if not, G's repayment or the expiration of the ten-year extinctive prescription period, the defendants asserted that G's creditor, who subrogated the right to cancel the registration of the establishment of the neighboring mortgage of this case, has the duty to cancel it.

In regard to this, the defendants asserted that the establishment registration of a mortgage in the nearest area of this case was effective as securing G's loan obligation, and that there still remains the secured obligation.

B. Judgment Gap No. 2

유사 판례

-인천지방법원 2019.07.18 2018가합59686

-인천지방법원 2019.11.01 2018가합60440

-수원지방법원 2016.03.17 2015나27245

-제주지방법원 2017.05.23 2017가단932

-인천지방법원 2021.04.02 2020가단215970