logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.02.13 2018가단5111598
근저당권말소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. As to the real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by D (hereinafter “instant real estate”), Defendant A completed the registration of the establishment of a mortgage over the maximum debt amount of KRW 37,500,000 (hereinafter “the establishment of a mortgage over the first place”) with the registration and receipt of the registration of the Gangwon District Court of Chuncheon on May 2, 1997. Defendant B completed the registration of the establishment of a mortgage over the maximum debt amount of KRW 37,50,000 (hereinafter “the establishment of a mortgage over the second place”). Defendant B completed the registration of the establishment of a mortgage over the maximum debt amount of KRW 65,00,000 (hereinafter “the establishment of a mortgage over the second place”) as of February 13,

(hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant collateral security”) B.

On July 21, 2009, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against D seeking the payment of indemnity amount with Seoul Western District Court Decision 2009Kadan20317, and sentenced D to the judgment on July 21, 2009 that “D shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 34,780,180, and damages for delay of KRW 33,453,490 among them,” and the above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2-1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff’s claim that the secured claim of the second collateral mortgage was nonexistent, and each of the instant secured claims of this case extinguished at the expiration of the ten-year extinctive prescription period.

Therefore, the Defendants are obligated to implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of the establishment registration of each of the preceding mortgages of this case upon the Plaintiff’s request by the insolvent D.

B. Whether the secured debt against Defendant B is established or not is a mortgage established by setting only the maximum amount of the secured debt and reserving the determination of the debt in the future. Since the secured debt is established for the purpose of securing a certain limit in the future settlement period, it is necessary to establish a legal act establishing the secured debt of the secured debt separate from the act of establishing the secured debt (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Da7041, May 28, 2004).

arrow