beta
Text
The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
judgment of the first instance.
Reasons
The plaintiff's assertion as to whether a loan contract or mortgage contract was entered into on November 1, 2002 and March 17, 2003, the defendant alleged as the first and second mortgages for the security of the obligation to return the loan, but the plaintiff did not enter into such loan contract or mortgage contract for the purpose of securing the obligation to return the loan. Thus, since the plaintiff did not have entered into such loan contract or mortgage contract for the purpose of securing the obligation to return the loan, the registration of the first and second mortgages must be cancelled as the ground for invalidation.
Where a loan contract as of November 1, 2002 and the establishment of a mortgage on the first place of the registration of mortgage was completed, the registration is presumed to have been duly made in the cause and procedure (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2001Da72029, Feb. 5, 2002; 93Da18914, Oct. 12, 1993). The responsibility to prove that the registration is null and void is the Plaintiff. However, the testimony of the witness of the first instance trial alone is insufficient to deem that the Defendant prepared a false written mortgage contract and completed the first place of the registration as the Plaintiff’s assertion, and there is no evidence otherwise.
Rather, according to the evidence Nos. 1 (No. 1,540,000 won for the defendant as of November 1, 2002 and the whole purport of evidence No. 27-1, 2, and 33, and 34 of evidence No. 27, each of the documents No. 27-1, 2, and 33, and 34, and the written appraisal by the trial appraiser Q, and the whole purport of the oral argument, the plaintiff prepared a document to establish a collateral security agreement with the defendant as to the maximum debt amount of KRW 1,10,00,00 (the principal of the loan is KRW 110,00,000,000,000,000,000,000 won for the defendant as of the above contract according to the written appraisal by the trial appraiser Q, and there is no other counter-proof, it can be recognized that the whole document is authentic).