2. The defendant is the Seoul Central District Court with respect to the real estate stated in the attached Form to the plaintiff.

2. In the event that a mortgagee files a request for auction on the ground of the nonperformance of the secured obligation, the amount of the collateral security obligation becomes final and conclusive at the time of the request for auction, and thereafter, the collateral security has the nature of the collateral security obligation and is subject to the same treatment as the ordinary mortgage (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Da25521, Dec. 9, 1997; 2001Da73022, Nov. 26, 2002). According to the evidence No. 11, according to the foregoing, the Defendant may recognize the fact that he filed a request for auction on September 19, 2014 with E of the instant court for the commencement of auction on September 22, 2014.

As seen earlier, the secured claim of the instant right to collateral security is a right to compensate the damages that the Plaintiff would incur to the Defendant if the Plaintiff did not cooperate in the procedure for transferring the right to lease of the instant commercial building. There is no evidence to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s nonperformance, such as that the Defendant did not cooperate in the transfer of the right to lease until the application for auction. Rather, in full view of the purport of the evidence submitted, the Defendant did not request the Plaintiff to transfer the right to lease until the application for auction, and the Plaintiff expressed its intent to cooperate in the transfer

Therefore, the right to collateral security of this case should be cancelled because there is no secured claim.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim is accepted on the ground of its reasoning, and the judgment of the court of first instance with different conclusions is unfair, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the defendant to cancel the right to collateral security of this case and order the cancellation thereof to the defendant.