(영문) 광주지방법원 2016.05.04 2015가단532400

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) 광주지방법원 2016.05.04 2015가단532400

근저당권설정등기말소등기

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 30, 2014, B entered into a contract with the Defendant for each of the loan of KRW 166,000,000 (hereinafter “the parent-base loan”) with a mortgage loan of KRW 18,000,000 as a credit loan (hereinafter “credit loan”). On the same day, B entered into a mortgage contract with the Defendant as a mortgagee with regard to the real estate stated in the separate sheet, which is his own property on the same day, and completed the registration thereof.

(hereinafter “instant collateral security”). B.

B sold the above real estate to the Plaintiff on October 15, 2014, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Plaintiff on March 5, 2015.

C. On June 2, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 33,200,000 to the Defendant on behalf of B, and KRW 132,800,000 on January 19, 2016, respectively.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1 to 5, 10, 11, and Eul 1 to 8

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the secured claim of the instant mortgage is limited to the claims of the instant parent-mortgage loan, and that the instant credit loan claim is not included in the instant parent-mortgage loan claim, and at the same time, seek the cancellation of the registration of creation of mortgage due to the extinguishment of the secured claim of the instant mortgage by repayment.

B. According to the evidence No. 1 of the judgment, B is recognized as having entered “credit loans” in the column for the special agreement of Article 3 in writing while preparing a mortgage contract.

Meanwhile, according to the personal credit review table (No. 7) prepared at the time of the instant credit loan contract, the instant credit loan was deemed as having not been a condition to enable collateral to be offered as “free credit loan,” but does not exclude the conclusion of a separate security contract between the parties on the loan in its nature.

Each contract for the establishment of a mortgage and a credit loan has been entered into on the same day, and the parent loan and credit loan of this case have been extended.

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 동부지원 2009.12.24 2008고합80

-창원지방법원마산지원 2016.10.14 2016가단7213

-대구지방법원영덕지원 2015.07.21 2015가단552

-광주지방법원 2018.08.23 2017가합53793

-광주지방법원 2016.07.22 2015나10369