logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원진주지원 2016.11.10 2016가단567
근저당권설정등기말소
Text

1. The defendant on November 24, 1994, as to each real estate listed in the attached list to the plaintiff.

Reasons

Basic Facts

The deceased C was the owner of each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “the instant real estate”). On November 23, 1994, the Defendant and the said real estate concluded a mortgage agreement with the obligor C, with the maximum debt amount of KRW 30,000,000,000, and completed the registration of establishment of a mortgage as the receipt registry office of the Changwon District Court, No. 24594 on November 24, 1994.

(C) The Plaintiff, who is a father of D, completed the registration of ownership transfer on October 13, 201, based on the agreement and the registration of establishment, died on April 25, 2001. As to the instant real estate, D, on January 21, 2008, due to inheritance due to consultation and division, and on October 21, 201, the Plaintiff, who is a father of D, completed the registration of ownership transfer on October 13, 201, respectively.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1 (including a provisional number), and the plaintiff's assertion of the purport of the entire argument by the parties concerned has expired due to the extinction of the secured debt, and the defendant is obligated to cancel the registration of establishment of the creation of the mortgage of this case to the plaintiff.

The Defendant’s assertion ① that the Plaintiff was unfairly donated the instant real estate using the aforementioned health conditions as D, while the Plaintiff did not have a normal transaction sense or sense of living with dementia as a result of the increase of dementia.

Therefore, since the instant real estate donation contract between D and the Plaintiff is null and void, the Plaintiff is not a legitimate owner of the instant real estate.

② The secured obligation of the instant right to collateral security was inherited by the deceased’s co-inheritors, who are co-inheritors, following the death of the network C, and the Plaintiff’s claim for the extinction of the secured obligation as the amount of debt corresponding to his/her statutory share of inheritance.

③ The deceased C has paid interest before the death, and the deceased’s return to the deceased’s son E has been paid in kind, such as rice, instead of interest or interest, on behalf of the heir.

arrow