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 January 10, 201, with respect to each of the instant lands owned by C, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in sequence D on November 24, 2014, and reached the present point.
B. Meanwhile, between the Defendant and C on February 10, 2008, the Defendant concluded a mortgage contract with the maximum debt amount of KRW 230 million as to each of the instant lands, and completed the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage on March 6, 2008.
【Fact-finding without dispute over the ground for recognition, evidence No. 1-5
2. As to the Plaintiff’s assertion that the establishment registration of a mortgage near the instant case was null and void due to the extinguishment of the secured obligation, the Defendant’s assertion that the establishment registration of a mortgage near the instant case was unlawful, and that the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, as the Plaintiff did not have the right to seek cancellation of the establishment registration of a mortgage near the instant case.
However, in a lawsuit for performance, there is standing to sue against a person who asserts that he/she has the right to demand performance, which is a subject matter of lawsuit, and the question of whether there is the right to demand performance is a matter to be judged within the subject matter of lawsuit.
3. In the event that the ownership of the real estate is transferred to a third party after the establishment of the right to collateral security was established, the current owner is entitled to file a claim for the cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the right to collateral security on the ground of the lapse of the obligation to collateral security, and the former owner of the right to collateral security may also file a claim for the cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the right to collateral security on the basis of the contractual right as a party to the contract to collateral security (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 93Da1638, Jan. 25, 1994). However, a person who is not a party to the contract to collateral security but is not the present owner is