beta
Text
1. Defendant B completed on July 1, 199 as the receipt No. 48886, regarding the real estate listed in the separate sheet to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Claim against Defendant B - Judgment on deemed confession (Article 208(3)2 of the Civil Procedure Act)
2. Claim against Defendant C
A. According to the evidence evidence Nos. 2 and 3, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 1,50,000 from Defendant C at the interest rate of 3% per month on August 24, 1999 (hereinafter “the instant loan”). In order to secure the obligation for the instant loan, the Plaintiff may recognize that the Plaintiff granted the Defendant the registration of establishment of a mortgage for the instant real estate amounting to KRW 2,250,000 for the maximum debt amount as Busan District Court was received on August 25, 1998 as Busan District Court Branch Branch of the Dong branch of the Busan District Court, No. 6250 on August 25, 1998.
B. The summary of the parties’ assertion (1) The Plaintiff’s assertion satisfied all the borrowed money to the Defendant, and thus, the right to collateral security under the name of the Defendant extinguished the secured obligation.
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage.
(2) The plaintiff asserted by the defendant C delayed the repayment of the loan of this case, and the defendant still remains the principal amounting to KRW 989,500 against the plaintiff and damages for delay from January 1, 2002.
C. Based on the judgment, the Plaintiff, a debtor, bears the burden of proof of proof as to whether the secured debt was extinguished on the ground that the secured debt was repaid, etc., and the Plaintiff did not make any assertion and prove the specific details and amount of the loan in this case (the Plaintiff stated that there was no evidence to present at the date for pleading). The Plaintiff’s assertion based on the premise that the debt in this case was extinguished by the repayment of the loan in this case is without merit.
The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.