earticle

영어

It is a tendency of a judicial precedent that the collateralizing debt existing material check lawsuit and the erasion lawsuit of the Kun registration of settlement of mortgage are interpreted as the independent claim which may have influence mutually and does not have influence between claims. There is necessity which must solve the problem whether it must be consistent on a code of legal procedure, and must reflect the relation on a substantive law after all, and I think that I will solve such a problem through this incident judicial precedent. If registration of settlement of mortgage is erased, a debt to be collateralized will be opposed to holding of the Supreme Court that it is not an object of the check lawsuit by the past legal relation. It is judged that the lawsuit of checking the debt about the upper flexible mortgage to be collateralized not existing by the premise that the fact that the secured claim of the flexible mortgage was repaid to the judicial precedent of this incident was accepted, and, as for the flexible mortgage, it already disappeared was related with your father of the past legal relation. the obligation to the superior root mortgage in the case of the creditor keeping documents, such as a bill at debt, as usual from the time of a setup, or asserting this to be collateralized cannot be said to be the past legal relation. If the present judicial precedent which can be interpreted as the profits of the collateralizing debt existing reconfirmation being accepted in such a case, and the tendency of a theory are followed even if it calls it the past legal relation, this incident Supreme Court judicial precedent must have change which slips out of a judicial precedent conventionally.