logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2017.03.08 2016가단210848
근저당권말소
Text

1. With respect to 1,609m2 in Jung-gu Incheon District Court on October 5, 1995 with respect to the 1,609m2 in Jung-gu, Incheon District Court.

Reasons

1. The plaintiff is a creditor who has the claim amount of KRW 276,520,195 and damages for delay as well as the claim amount of KRW 276,520,195 and the damages for delay, comprehensively taking account of each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including each number), Eul evidence No. 4, Eul evidence No. 1, and Eul evidence No. 2 (including the provisional number) as to the cause of the claim. The defendant decided on Oct. 5, 1995 as of Dec. 31, 199 and lent KRW 300 million to the Collaboratjin Co., Ltd., Ltd., and received the registration of establishment of a mortgage on the same day from the Jinjin Co., Ltd. as of December 31, 199. According to the above facts, according to the above facts, it is apparent that the extinctive prescription of the defendant's loans to the Jinjin Co., Ltd., Ltd., had already expired.

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense, etc.

A. The defendant asserts that the plaintiff cannot file a claim for cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the above establishment of a mortgage against the defendant on behalf of the cooperation company due to the extinguishment of the plaintiff's claim for the indemnity against the cooperation company. Therefore, in the case of a claim filed by the creditor against a third party by exercising the subrogation right, the third debtor cannot set up a defense against the creditor, and in principle, the third debtor cannot set up a defense against the creditor. In the case of the completion of the extinctive prescription of the claim, the person who is entitled to invoke the extinctive prescription interest is only the person who directly receives the benefit of prescription and the third debtor cannot exercise the right of subrogation (Supreme Court Decision 2001Da10151 Decided February 12, 2004)

B. Around December 2006, the Defendant received dividends from the expropriation of part of the above real estate. On October 16, 2009, upon receipt of the claim seizure and collection order with respect to the claim of the Collaborativejin Co., Ltd., Ltd., the Defendant received the distribution of KRW 299,090,324 from the Incheon District Court C distribution procedure on December 23, 2009.

arrow