beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On June 13, 2013, the Plaintiff and the Defendant drafted a loan certificate stating that the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 250 million from the Defendant at interest rate of 30% per annum and on November 30, 2013, and that “the deposit of the rent shall be made to C” (hereinafter “the loan certificate”).
B. On June 13, 2013, the Plaintiff completed the registration of creation of a mortgage on each of the real estates listed in the separate sheet owned by D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “each of the instant real estates”), with regard to each of the said real estates as joint collateral (hereinafter “registration of creation of a mortgage on each of the instant real estates”) based on the obligor, the mortgagee, the Defendant, the maximum debt amount, KRW 250,000,000,000, and each of the above real estates as joint collateral.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2-1 through 9, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments
2. The gist of the parties' assertion asserts that the registration of establishment of each of the instant loans should be cancelled due to the lack of secured claims, since the Defendant did not deposit the loan to C even after completing the registration of establishment of each of the instant loans after the establishment of the instant loan certificate.
In regard to this, the Defendant: (a) written claim of KRW 210 million against the Plaintiff was to be transferred by C to the Defendant; and (b) the Defendant first paid KRW 150 million out of the above claim amount to C; (c) so, the secured claim of each of the preceding claims of this case exists.
3. In light of the above facts and the purport of Gap evidence No. 2-1 through No. 9, each of the real estate of this case is the ownership of D Co., Ltd., not the plaintiff, and the plaintiff is the debtor on the registration of establishment of mortgage of each of the real estate of this case. According to the above facts, according to the above facts, the plaintiff, not the owner of each of the real estate of this case, is against the defendant.