beta
Text
1. The defendant shall receive on September 18, 2008 from the Daegu District Court Branch of Seogu District Court with regard to real estate stated in the attached list to the plaintiffs.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The plaintiffs are married couple, and the defendant is the plaintiff A's leakage.
B. On September 18, 2008, the Plaintiffs and the Defendant’s mother completed on September 16, 2008 the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage (the maximum bond amount of KRW 20 million, the debtor F, and the Defendant’s mother) on the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) on September 16, 2008.
C. On November 27, 2015, F completed the registration of ownership transfer for the instant real estate to the Plaintiffs on November 27, 2015.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2
2. The assertion and the judgment Plaintiffs asserted that the establishment registration of a mortgage of this case was invalid registration for the establishment of a mortgage of this case, and the Defendant asserted that the Defendant had registered the establishment of a mortgage of this case in order to secure F’s her mother’s expenses for hospital and repair and maintenance of the real estate of this case.
On the other hand, a mortgage is a mortgage created by setting the maximum amount of the debt to be secured and reserving the determination of the debt in the future. Since multiple unspecified claims arising from a continuous business relationship are established for the purpose of securing a certain limit in a settlement term for the future, separately from the act of establishing a mortgage, there must be a legal act establishing a secured claim of the mortgage. The burden of proving whether there was a legal act establishing a secured claim of the mortgage at the time of the establishment of the mortgage is on the part of claiming its existence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da72070, Dec. 24, 2009). The existence of the secured claim is not presumed by the presumption of registration (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da26254, Jul. 28, 2011). The secured claim of this case, like the Defendant’s assertion, was established regarding the establishment of the mortgage.