beta
Text
1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of the following facts: (a) the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not dispute each other; (b) the evidence No. 1 to No. 3; (c) the evidence No. 2; (d) the evidence No. 4-1, 2; and (e) the purport of the entire pleadings.
On January 22, 2010, Nonparty D signed and sealed a document stating “The Plaintiff and the Defendant borrowed KRW 20 million on the same day as the D-owned real estate was provided as security” under the title of “the tea payment contract.”
B. On January 22, 2010 with respect to the land E, forest E, 7045 square meters (hereinafter “the instant real estate”) owned by Asan City owned by D, the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage with the mortgagee and the Defendant jointly set the maximum debt amount at KRW 30 million.
C. On June 17, 2013, the Daejeon District Court prepared a distribution schedule that distributes the amount of KRW 15 million to the Plaintiff and the Defendant on June 17, 2013 in the case of a voluntary auction of real estate C with respect to the instant real estate.
2. The plaintiff is merely the plaintiff to lend money to D. Thus, the registration of establishment of a mortgage on the real estate in the defendant's name is null and void as the registration without any ground. Thus, the defendant is obligated to transfer the right to claim a dividend payment to the plaintiff or return the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the amount.
In the event that a registration has been made on a real estate, the real estate is presumed to have been duly made in its cause and procedure unless there are any special circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 4290Da251, 252, Oct. 21, 1957; 69Da311, May 13, 1969; 93Da37298, 37304, Feb. 25, 1994). The registrant asserts that the form or process of the act of cause of registration is somewhat different, and the presumption of the registration cannot be said to have been broken with only such assertion (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da10160, Sept. 13, 1994); and A.