(영문) 제주지방법원 2019.01.16 2017나13229

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 제주지방법원 2019.01.16 2017나13229

근저당권말소

Text

1. The judgment of the first instance, including the plaintiffs' claims changed in the trial, shall be modified as follows.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff owned a net G (hereinafter “the deceased”). On April 4, 2010, the Deceased died, and the Plaintiffs inherited the deceased.

B. As to the instant real estate, the Deceased concluded each contract to establish a collateral security with the obligees listed below as indicated in the table below, and accordingly, the obligees completed each registration of the establishment of a collateral security (the obligor is all the Deceased) as listed in the table below (hereinafter referred to as the “registration of the instant O collateral security”; and thereafter, the additional registration of the transfer of the right to collateral security was completed as indicated in the supplementary registration of the transfer of the right to collateral security, as shown in the table below (hereinafter referred to as the “registration of the instant O collateral security”).

On August 19, 2006, Defendant E1-2, No. 2098, Nov. 29, 2006, the receipt number of which was the additional registration prior to the maximum debt amount (registration date and the collateral security right holder) 1-1, 1992, and the H 30 million won (H 3,000,000 won) of August 19, 2006, Defendant E 1-3, Nov. 29, 2006, and Defendant E 1-6, Nov. 29, 2006, without the evidence No. 330,000 won (No. 1-4,000 won) to 30,000 won (No evidence No. 3098, Sept. 16, 1992, 196)

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiffs asserted that they met the entire secured obligation of each of the instant collateral security registrations to the Defendants.

Even if it is not so, if the claim is not exercised for 10 years, the extinctive prescription expires (Article 162(1) of the Civil Act). Since 10 years have passed since the registration of each of the collateral security in this case was completed, the secured claim became extinct by prescription.

Therefore, the Defendants have the duty to cancel the registration of each of the instant collateral mortgages against the Plaintiffs.

B. Defendant’s assertion

참조조문

-민법 제162조 제1항

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.07.12 2017가합516976

-대구지방법원 2017.05.30 2017가단305

-인천지방법원 2019.11.01 2018가합60440

-서울동부지방법원 2015.12.08 2014가합9821

-대전지방법원서산지원 2020.01.16 2019가합50498