(영문) 대전지방법원서산지원 2015.11.17 2015가단52451

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 2015.11.17 2015가단52451

근저당권말소

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. Nonparty 2 filed an application for payment order with the Daejeon District Court 2005 tea606 against Nonparty 2.

B. The Plaintiff acquired the claim against B by transfer of the said joint credit cooperative.

C. The Defendant completed the registration of the establishment of a collateral security (hereinafter “mortgage registration of this case”) with respect to the real estate listed in the attached list No. 10738 of April 18, 1998, Daejeon District Court, Jinjin-si, Daejeon District Court, as to the real estate listed in the attached list No. 2 (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

The defendant is the mother of B.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendant did not implement the registration of the instant collateral for a long period of time, and the Defendant completed the registration of the instant collateral without any obligation in collusion with B, which is null and void by means of a false declaration of conspiracy.

Even if not, the defendant's claim against B was extinguished by the lapse of 10 years.

B. It is insufficient to view that B conspired with the Defendant to have made a false debt as the secured debt and made a false registration of the instant collateral security in the future with the Defendant, even though multiple provisional seizures had been executed after the registration of the instant collateral security was completed with respect to the instant real estate as to the assertion of false conspiracy of agreement, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

Rather, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the testimony of the witness B, B borrowed KRW 40 million from the defendant, the mother, around 1996.

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 2016.07.21 2015나109391

-대전지방법원서산지원 2014.12.05 2014가단50229

-대전지방법원서산지원 2015.05.26 2014가단54313

-대전지방법원서산지원 2015.11.17 2015가단51182

-광주지방법원 2015.12.18 2015나4630