beta
Text
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) the witness U’s testimony of the first instance court under each of the evidence Nos. 19 through 23, which is insufficient to recognize the plaintiffs’ assertion as evidence submitted by the court below; and (b) the reasoning of the judgment is the same as the part of the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except for an additional determination as to the parties’ assertion, and thus, (c) this case is cited pursuant to the main sentence of
2. Judgment on the parties' arguments
A. 1) In the event that the actual principal obligor claiming the secured claim of the instant right to collateral security (non-existence of the secured claim of this case) takes out the loan documents in the name of a third party as the principal obligor in the form of a third party and the financial institution is aware of the fact that the third party is not liable as the debtor with respect to the third party, the loan agreement in the name of the third party is an invalid legal act corresponding to the false declaration of agreement. The loan agreement between the debtor and the Do Private Savings Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant loan agreement”) which is a legal act that constituted the secured claim of the instant right to collateral security of this case.
Since the actual principal debtor of the loan contract is the defendant, the above loan contract is an invalid legal act that constitutes a false conspiracy, and the defendant's repayment of debt is a discharge of his own debt. Accordingly, since the mortgage of this case had already been extinguished in accordance with the principle of non-existence of security right, the registration of creation of mortgage of this case should be cancelled. 2) In full view of the entries in the evidence No. 15 and No. 20, the testimony of K witness of the first instance trial, and the purport of the whole pleadings, it can be recognized that the defendant paid 500 million won of the loan of this case to J as the purchase price of each real estate of this case, etc. of this case. However, the above facts and the above facts are acknowledged.