A. On February 24, 2005, the Plaintiff and the Defendant representative C prepared a written contract to establish a collateral security (right to collateral security (right to collateral security) with a creditor and a debtor and a person establishing a collateral security (right to collateral security) at KRW 300,000,000 with regard to real estate listed in the attached list owned by the Plaintiff, and on March 15, 2005, the registration of the establishment of the collateral security (right to collateral security) was completed

(hereinafter referred to as “registration of creation of mortgage of this case”). (b)

The registration of creation of the above right to collateral security on April 16, 2015

13. The supplementary registration of the transfer of the right to collateral security to the defendant was completed on the ground of the transfer of the confirmed claim

(hereinafter referred to as the "Supplementary Registration of this case"). . [Grounds for recognition] . [The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 18 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the registration of the establishment of a mortgage of this case should be cancelled, since C’s claim against the Plaintiff, which is the secured debt of the registration of the establishment of a mortgage of this case, is nonexistent.

B. The defendant's assertion made oral agreements with the purport that the plaintiff will bear the joint and several liability for the loan claims that the defendant has against D. The plaintiff's assertion is unjust since the defendant's supplementary registration to transfer the right to collateral security to the defendant for correction of compliance with the substantive relations was completed in the course of completing the registration of establishment of the right to collateral security in this case by mistake, stating C, the representative director of the defendant, as

3. Determination

A. There is no dispute between the parties as to the absence of a loan claim under a monetary loan contract between the plaintiff and the defendant representative director C.

As alleged by the defendant, we examine whether or not the plaintiff bears the joint and several guarantee obligation for D's loans to the defendant.