(영문) 춘천지방법원강릉지원 2016.05.10 2015가단6704

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) 춘천지방법원강릉지원 2016.05.10 2015가단6704

근저당권말소

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The fact that the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 12 million from the Defendant around August 27, 2003 on the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage, and that the Plaintiff completed the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter “mortgage of this case”) with respect to the real estate stated in the purport of the claim owned by the Plaintiff as the collateral by the Chuncheon District Court No. 31602, August 27, 2003, which was received on August 27, 2003, as the maximum debt amount of KRW 15,00,000,000, the debtor, the Plaintiff and the mortgagee

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is the cause of the instant claim, and the Plaintiff extinguished the secured debt of the instant right to collateral security.

The cancellation shall be sought against the defendant on the ground that the ten-year extinctive prescription has expired by completion of the ten-year period.

3. Determination

A. First, it is insufficient to recognize that the evidence of the Plaintiff’s submission alone was satisfied with respect to whether the secured obligation was extinguished due to the repayment of the secured obligation, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

(B) As seen in the rear, the Plaintiff reported the Defendant as a rehabilitation creditor.

Next, as to whether the extinctive prescription of the secured obligation has expired, it is apparent that ten years have elapsed since the Plaintiff borrowed money from the Defendant. However, around June 25, 2008, the Plaintiff applied for individual rehabilitation with the Chuncheon District Court 2008 Mada6388 and applied for rehabilitation around November 4, 2008, and the Defendant’s loan claim also is indicated in the list of individual rehabilitation creditors, and there is no dispute between the parties. In such a case, the Defendant’s defense pointing this out has merit, and the Plaintiff’s above assertion has no merit.

4. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

참조조문

-채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2016.03.31 2015가단45921

-춘천지방법원 2015.10.15 2015가단154

-춘천지방법원강릉지원 2017.06.14 2017가단779

-춘천지방법원강릉지원 2016.07.12 2015가단24689

-대전지방법원 2015.07.07 2015가단5917