beta
Text
1. Between the Plaintiff and the Defendants, loans under a loan agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants on October 27, 1995 are obligations.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On October 27, 1995, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 50 million from D until January 31, 1996.
B. On November 13, 1995, in order to secure the above loan obligation, the Plaintiff completed the registration of establishment of each of the neighboring mortgages (hereinafter “registration of establishment of each of the neighboring mortgages of this case”) with respect to the 1005 square meters and 2069 square meters and 2069 square meters prior to F, in order to D as a mortgagee, for the purpose of securing the above loan obligation.
C. D died on November 20, 2012, and the Defendants succeeded to D.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. 1) The Plaintiff’s claim for the loan against the Plaintiff was completed and expired. 2) The loan claim against the Plaintiff was extended to 10 years from January 31, 1996, when the due date for payment of the loan was due, and among them, it does not seem that there was a suspension of the extinctive prescription of the loan claim, such as the Plaintiff’s claim for performance. As such, the said loan claim does not exist after the lapse of the extinctive prescription, and as long as the Defendants, who are the successors of D, are dissatisfied, there is a benefit to seek confirmation of its absence.
B. We examine the request for cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage, and the fact that the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage of this case was established as a collateral for the loan to the plaintiff, and the extinctive prescription for the loan credit of this case was completed earlier. Thus, the defendants, the heir of D, are liable to implement the registration procedure for cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage
3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and all of them are accepted. It is so decided as per Disposition.