(영문) 의정부지방법원고양지원 2014.07.24 2014가단3941

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) 의정부지방법원고양지원 2014.07.24 2014가단3941

근저당권말소등기

Text

1. As to the real estate stated in the attached list to the Plaintiff, the Defendant shall have the Goyang District Court senior registry office.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 4, 2011, the Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Trier Construction”) was awarded a contract with the Defendant for the new construction of a commercial building on the land outside Incheon Dong-gu C and three lots of land.

B. On October 19, 201, the construction borrowed KRW 75,000,00 per annum from the Defendant to pay the land compensation, construction site expenses, etc. (hereinafter “the instant loan”). The Plaintiff and D guaranteed the instant loan obligation.

C. In addition, on November 21, 2011, the Plaintiff completed the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter “registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage”) that was the Defendant for the establishment of a new mortgage (hereinafter “registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage”) with respect to the real estate indicated in the attached list, which was owned by the Plaintiff, under Article 156621, which was received by the Goyang-gu District Court for the purpose of securing the debt of the instant loan.

However, in the case of Incheon District Court 2013 Gohap30673 (principal lawsuit), 2013 Gohap30680 (Counterclaim), between the Defendant and Construction, the Defendant expressed his/her intention to offset the loan amount from the construction cost to be paid by the Defendant. On January 10, 2014, the Defendant rendered a judgment to set off the defect repair cost, liquidated damages, loan money, etc. against the construction, and to pay the remainder of 35,99,131 won and delay damages.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1-4, Eul evidence Nos. 1-2 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the judgment as to the cause of the claim, it is determined that the loan debt of this case, which is the secured debt of the registration of the establishment of the mortgage of this case, was extinguished by offsetting, and thus, the defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for cancellation of the registration of the establishment

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.06.24 2015가단163098

-의정부지방법원 2015.05.29 2014나52934

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2015.02.13 2014가단22959

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2015.08.19 2014가합54700

-서울북부지방법원 2017.04.04 2017가단103679