logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
대전지방법원 2019.08.22 2018나118433
근저당권말소
Text

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

Basic Facts

On October 1, 2008, the Plaintiff decided to grant 43,680,000 won (State subsidies of KRW 21,840,000, 10,920,000, Gun subsidies of KRW 10,920,00, Gun subsidies of KRW 10,920,00) with subsidies of “C” to the farming association corporation B (hereinafter “instant corporation”).

After that, the Plaintiff reduced the subsidy in consideration of the fact that the subsidy was not newly constructed according to the approved design document, and on June 3, 2009, the Plaintiff paid 38,633,000 won to the instant corporation.

The corporation of this case newly constructed a building listed in attached Table No. 1, and paid the construction cost as the above subsidy received from the plaintiff on April 22, 2009 when the registration of initial ownership was completed on the above building.

On April 13, 2009, the Plaintiff decided to grant KRW 1,200,00,000 (State subsidies of KRW 800,000,000, 200,000, Do subsidies of KRW 200,000,00, Gun subsidies of KRW 200,000,00, Gun subsidies of KRW 200,00,00,00) as part of the “major forest income business” to the instant corporation.

After all, the Plaintiff paid KRW 600,000,000 on April 27, 2009, and KRW 240,000,000 on June 30, 2009, and KRW 216,628,860 on June 30, 2010, reflecting the increased or decreased portion in the actual construction process.

The corporation of this case newly constructed each building listed in the separate sheet Nos. 2 through 4 using the above subsidy as the construction cost, and completed registration of preservation of ownership on March 2, 2010.

On February 1, 2011, without obtaining approval from the head of a central government agency, the instant corporation entered into a mortgage agreement with Defendant on each of the buildings listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”), and on the same day, “the registration of establishment of a mortgage on the part of Defendant as stated in the purport of the claim (hereinafter “the instant building”).

207.

On March 19, 2012, the Plaintiff urged the instant corporation to cancel the registration of the establishment of the instant mortgage, but failed to implement it, and the Plaintiff revoked the decision to grant each of the instant subsidies.