A. On July 27, 2001, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet.

B. Since then, upon Nonparty C’s request, the Plaintiff completed the registration of creation of mortgage (hereinafter “registration of mortgage of this case”) with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet as the debtor, the mortgagee, the Defendant, and the maximum debt amount of 100 million won, as the Jeonju District Court, No. 2939, Mar. 2, 2005.

C. In relation to the registration of the instant right to collateral security, the Defendant only lent the name of the mortgagee to Nonparty C upon Nonparty’s request, but did not have any obligation or obligation between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff.

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

2. Where the collateral security right is established by providing real estate owned by the debtor as collateral for the purpose of securing the claim, in principle, the claim and mortgage cannot be different from the subject of the collateral security right. Therefore, the registration of collateral security right completed in the name of a third party, not the creditor, constitutes null and void

However, in a case where there was an agreement between the creditor, the debtor, and the third party on the registration of the right to collateral security, and further, there was a special circumstance to deem that the claim was practically attributed to the third party, or in light of transactional circumstances, the third party is not limited to the item on which the registration of the right to collateral security was made, but the third party is entitled to receive the claim effective from the debtor, and the debtor also can be deemed to have an indivisible relationship between the creditor and the third party, who is the nominal owner of the right to collateral security, in other words, the registration of the right to collateral security in the third party’s name, can be exceptionally valid.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Da64478, Nov. 26, 2009). In light of such legal principles, the facts recognized earlier are acknowledged.