beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On March 19, 2010, the registration of the establishment of a neighboring forest with the Defendant, the debtor, the Plaintiff, and the maximum debt amount of KRW 78 million was completed on March 19, 2010 with respect to the F forest land owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant land”).
(hereinafter referred to as "the establishment registration of the neighboring mortgage of this case". (b)
From March 15, 2018, the distribution schedule was prepared to distribute the amount of KRW 66,996,471 to the Defendant, who is the mortgagee, and the amount of surplus 49,89,390 to the Plaintiff, who is the mortgagee, on March 15, 2018.
[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 4-1, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion (1) on March 22, 2010, the Plaintiff borrowed a total of KRW 60 million from the Defendant, including KRW 50 million and KRW 10 million and credit loans secured by the instant land. Around February 2013, the Plaintiff repaid the said credit loans to the Defendant.
(2) However, the Defendant’s employees embezzled the checks issued by the Plaintiff for the repayment of the above credit loans, and forged a loan agreement as if the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 60 million as collateral on March 22, 2010.
(3) Therefore, the registration of the establishment of the instant neighboring mortgage based on a forged loan agreement and the dividends in the auction procedure conducted on the basis thereof are all null and void, and the amount to be actually distributed (=amounting to KRW 66,96,471, a surplus of KRW 49,89,390 against the Defendant) ought to be distributed to the Plaintiff. Therefore, the said distribution schedule ought to be revised as stated in the purport of the claim.
B. In light of the following circumstances, the Plaintiff’s evidence alone submitted by the Plaintiff is insufficient to acknowledge that the loan amount was forged on March 22, 2010, which caused the 60 million won loan agreement, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.