beta
Text
1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.
2. All the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. (1) The Plaintiff is the owner of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”). Defendant B filed an application for voluntary auction against the instant real estate on May 26, 2015. Defendant C submitted a report on the right and a written demand for distribution on July 23, 2015.
(2) The Plaintiff did not know the Defendants, and even though there was no fact that the establishment of the right to collateral security was established, Defendant B completed the registration of the establishment of each of the neighboring mortgages under the Do Government District Court No. 14534, Jul. 28, 2008; Defendant C completed the registration of the establishment of each of the instant real estate under the Do Government District Court No. 16063, Oct. 5, 2010.
(3) The Plaintiff did not have established the right to collateral security against Defendant B, and there is no supporting debt, and thus, Defendant B seeks confirmation of the absence of the above obligation and cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the right to collateral security as a exclusion of interference based on ownership.
(4) The Plaintiff did not have established the right to collateral security against Defendant C, and the cause debt (the secured debt) ceased to exist due to repayment. As such, the Plaintiff sought confirmation of the non-existence of the above obligation and cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the right to collateral security against Defendant C as an exclusion of interference based on ownership.
2. According to the statements in the claims against Defendant B (1) 1 and 1 to 6, the agreement rate of KRW 50,000 from Defendant B on July 28, 2008 is 1.5% per month, joint and several sureties borrowed from Defendant B as E (the Plaintiff’s mother was indicted for fraud and sentenced to imprisonment for a period of six years in the first instance trial). On the same day, the Plaintiff entered into a mortgage contract with Defendant B with a maximum claim amount of KRW 6.5 million for the instant real estate; the above loan contract for consumption and mortgage contract were concluded in the form of representing the Plaintiff with a certificate of personal seal impression; the Plaintiff received KRW 50,00 from Defendant B on July 28, 2008; and the Defendant B.