A. Defendant B shall have the Daejeon District Court's Taean-gun E forest land of 9025 square meters on March 1, 2008. < Amended by Act No. 8857, Mar. 2, 2008>

A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings as to the statement in Gap evidence No. 1, the fact that the registration of the establishment of the right to collateral security (hereinafter referred to as the "right to collateral security") was completed on March 10, 2008 with respect to the land of 9025 square meters (hereinafter referred to as the "land of this case") in Taean-gun, Taean-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, the Daejeon District Court’s Taean District Court’s 4236 on March 10, 208, and the registration of the establishment of the right to collateral security (hereinafter referred to as the "right to collateral security") was completed on May 9, 2008 with respect to the registration of the establishment of the right to collateral security (hereinafter referred to as the "right to collateral security) of this case as of May 9, 2008, Defendant C’s future provisional attachment and No. 4678 on March 4, 2015).

B. Determination of the right to collateral security is a mortgage established by setting only the maximum amount of the debt to be secured and reserving the determination of the debt in the future (Article 357(1) of the Civil Act), and is established with the aim of securing a certain limit at a settlement term in the future. Thus, separate from the act of establishing the right to collateral security, there must be a legal act establishing the right to collateral security, and the burden of proof as to whether there was a legal act establishing the right to collateral security at the time of establishment of the right to collateral security has been asserted.

On the other hand, if a claim with the right to collateral security is seized, the purpose of registering the seizure of the right to collateral security by means of additional registration in the establishment registration of the right to collateral security is to publicly announce the seizure of the right to collateral security because the seizure of the right to collateral security is not effective even if the right to collateral security is attached by the incidental nature of the right to collateral security. Thus, if the right to collateral security does not exist, the seizure order shall be null and void, and if the right to seize the right to collateral is cancelled,