logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 여주지원 2018.11.15 2018가단54090
근저당권말소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. As to the land of this case owned by E on December 6, 2007, the Defendant completed the registration of the establishment of the creation of the first neighboring land of this case of KRW 100 million with the maximum debt amount. On the same day, the Defendant completed the registration of the establishment of the second neighboring land of this case of KRW 300 million with respect to the land of this case owned by E.

B. On August 31, 2009, the Plaintiff purchased each of the instant lands Nos. 1 and 2 (hereinafter “each of the instant lands”) from E, and the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on September 17, 2009.

C. On December 12, 2017, the Defendant received a voluntary decision to commence the auction on each of the instant land by means of the instant Nos. 1 and 2 collateral security. Accordingly, the auction procedure on each of the instant land was in progress.

(hereinafter referred to as "instant auction case"). 【Evidence Evidence: Each entry of evidence No. 1 and No. 2 and the purport of the whole pleadings】

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. On March 16, 2018, in order to withdraw the instant auction case, the Plaintiff asserted with the Defendant, and ① the Plaintiff transferred the ownership of each land of this case to the Defendant in lieu of paying the secured debt of the Defendant’s right to collateral security.

② The Defendant shall pay KRW 500 million to the Plaintiff (as part of the settlement of price).

(3) The defendant shall withdraw the auction case of this case currently in progress.

“The content was agreed.”

Accordingly, the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the owner of each of the instant lands, and the Defendant, the mortgagee, transferred the ownership of each of the instant lands owned by the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff instead of paying the secured debt of Defendant’s right to collateral security, and thus, it may be deemed that the said first and second collateral mortgages were extinguished due to the repayment of the secured debt of the first and second collateral mortgages on each of the instant lands, or that the Defendant renounced the instant secured debt of the first and second collateral mortgages.

In addition, according to the above agreement, even though the defendant should withdraw the auction of this case, it is possible to do so.

arrow