logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017. 04. 06. 선고 2016가단5085008 판결
이 사건 압류등기의 명의자는 이해관계 있는 제3자로서 근저당권설정등기의 말소등기에 대하여 승낙의 의사표시를 할 의무가 있음[국패]
Title

The nominal owner of the instant seizure registration is an interested third party and is obligated to express his/her consent on the registration of cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage.

Summary

Defendant Republic of Korea, the nominal owner of the registration of seizure of this case based on each of the instant mortgages to be cancelled by invalidation, is a third party with an interest in the registration, and is obligated to express his/her consent to the cancellation registration of the registration of creation of the instant collateral mortgages.

Related statutes

Article 168 of the Civil Act: Grounds for Interruption of Extinctive Prescription

Cases

2016 Ghana 508508 Cancellation of the right to collateral security

Plaintiff

AA

Defendant

Republic of Korea and one other

Conclusion of Pleadings

2017.03.09

Imposition of Judgment

2017.04.06

Text

1. As to each real estate listed in the separate sheet to the Plaintiff, Defendant KimB:

(a)** district court** Registry of December 19, 200, followed the procedure for registration of cancellation of registration of establishment of creation of a neighboring mortgage which was completed by No. 6528 of December 19, 200;

(b)** District Court** Registry* each right to claim for ownership transfer registration completed on December 19, 200 by receipt No. 6529, implemented the procedure for cancellation registration.

2. Defendant Republic of Korea expressed its intent to accept the registration of cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage as stated in Article 1-1(a) to the Plaintiff.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 19, 200, PP Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "PP Development") borrowed KRW 300 million from Defendant KimB (hereinafter referred to as "the loan in this case"), and KimCC (hereinafter referred to as "right to secure another's property") completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter referred to as "right to secure another's property") that was entered in the separate list as a collateral for the above loan obligations, *** district court** the registry office* 6528, Dec. 19, 200, the maximum debt amount of KRW 350,00,000,000,000,000 won (hereinafter referred to as "right to secure another's property) and the secured debt was completed.

B. Meanwhile, on December 19, 2000, Defendant KimB completed the provisional registration of the right to claim the transfer of ownership on the ground of a pre-sale agreement made on December 15, 200 with respect to each of the instant real property (hereinafter “each of the instant provisional registration”).

C. On March 30, 2016, the Plaintiff purchased each of the instant real estate and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Plaintiff.

D. On September 15, 2010, Defendant Republic of Korea (U.S.) seized each of the instant collateral security claims, and completed the registration of seizure (hereinafter “registration of seizure”).

E. Defendant KimB received KRW 280 million from PP development until August 20, 201 with respect to the instant loan, and Defendant KimB did not exercise any right to the instant loan claim from the next date until the closing date of the argument in this case.

[Grounds for Recognition] ○ Defendant KimB: Confession

○ Defendant Republic of Korea: Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 through 3, and purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant KimB

Defendant KimB did not submit a written answer and did not attend the court on the date of pleading. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion is deemed to have been led to confession pursuant to Article 150 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Determination on the claim against Defendant Republic of Korea

Where the ownership of the real estate is transferred to a third party after the establishment of the right to collateral security, the current owner may request the cancellation of the registration of the right to collateral security on the basis of his/her ownership (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 93Da1638, Jan. 25, 1994; 93Da16338, Jan. 25, 1994); where a claim with the right to collateral security is seized, the purpose of registering the seizure of the right to collateral by means of supplementary registration in the registration of establishment of the right to collateral security is to publicly announce the seizure of the right to collateral because the seizure of the right to collateral security becomes effective in the case of the seizure of the right to collateral security, which is subordinate to the right to collateral security. If the right to collateral security does not exist, the seizure order shall be null and void, and when the right to collateral security is cancelled, the third party interested in the registration shall express his/her consent to the cancellation of the right to collateral security (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Da709, Dec. 274, 2009).

In light of the above facts in light of the above legal principles, the statute of limitations has expired on August 21, 201, when ten years have elapsed since August 201, 201 when the secured debt of each of the instant secured claims was interrupted. Accordingly, Defendant KimB is obligated to implement the registration procedure for cancellation of the registration of the establishment of each of the instant secured claims. Accordingly, the Defendant Republic of Korea, the title holder of each of the instant secured claims, is a third party with interest in the registration, and is obligated to express his/her consent on the registration of cancellation of the establishment of the instant secured claims.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning (However, with respect to the burden of litigation costs, it shall be borne by each party in accordance with Articles 98 and 100 of the Civil Procedure Act in consideration of the circumstances of this case, whether it is attributable to him/her, equity, etc.

arrow