beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On September 15, 2004, the Plaintiff received a loan (the subject of loan: general household loan) from the Korea Exchange Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Korea Exchange Bank”) on the condition of “0.82% of the CD-dong,” and concluded a mortgage contract setting the maximum debt amount as KRW 360 million with respect to the apartment of Songpa-gu Seoul E apartment 7 Dong 1001 (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”) and completed the registration of creation of mortgage (hereinafter “mortgage of this case”) on September 15, 2004 with respect to the apartment of this case as the grounds for registration by the Seoul Eastern District Court No. 89632, Songdong District Court No. 89632, Sept. 15, 2004.
B. As to the scope of the secured obligation under Article 1 subparag. 1 at the time of the establishment of the instant right to collateral security, the phrase “a creditor may choose any of the following three types (including specific collateral, limited collateral, and comprehensive collateral) different from the scope of the secured obligation, and the founder shall secure the obligation as provided by the collateral security (hereinafter including compensation for delay and other incidental obligation).” The phrase “a creditor may secure the obligation as provided by the collateral security.” As to the comprehensive collateral security at the bottom, the phrase “a debtor shall be written in the same word as attached to each other, stating that “a creditor may secure the obligation as provided by the collateral security.” As to the comprehensive collateral security, the word as “a bill loan, instrument loan, check loan, discount, payment guarantee, bill discount, trade name transaction, bond acceptance, foreign exchange transaction or other credit transaction, and all obligations arising from the creditor and the third party, ② a guarantee obligation as to the transaction with the creditor and the third party, ③ a creditor’s transaction with the third party, and ③ a bill or check acquired by the creditor.”
The Plaintiff selected a comprehensive collateral security by stating the “general” in the above part.
C. After that, on September 30, 2009, the Plaintiff paid KRW 70 million from the non-party bank.