April 1, 2015

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1,80,000,000 won with interest rate of 20% per annum from the day after the copy of the complaint of this case is served to the day of complete payment. With respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet 1 and 2 (hereinafter "each real estate of this case"), the Seoul Northern District Court completed the procedure for registration of completion of the establishment of neighboring mortgage (hereinafter "registration of establishment of neighboring mortgage of this case"), which was registered as cancelled on December 17, 2012 by the Seoul Northern District Court No. 85635, Mar. 21, 2012, completed as of March 21, 2012 by the Seoul Northern District Court No. 16986.

A. The conclusion of a lease agreement between Nonparty 1 and the Domina Domina Private Teaching Institutes

On April 27, 2009, Ptotopy Driving Schools (hereinafter “Ptopy Driving Schools”) leased the building specified in attached Table 2 (hereinafter “instant building”) from Nonparty 1 to April 27, 2009, 1.8 billion won of the lease deposit, from April 27, 2009 to April 26, 201 (hereinafter “the lease agreement of this case”), and paid KRW 1.8 billion of the lease deposit to Nonparty 1. The lease agreement of this case was terminated on July 2012.

B. The Plaintiff’s acquisition of bonds with preemptive right to new shares

1) The Plaintiff, on October 29, 2009, agreed on October 30, 2009, i.e., 3 billion won per annum (10% per annum, 19% per annum, and hereinafter “the instant bonds”) of Auu license Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Au license”) to acquire bonds with preemptive right to new shares issued on October 30, 2009, and the maturity date shall be October 30, 2012; however, the Plaintiff may claim for early repayment each month from the date one year has elapsed from the date of issuance of the bonds until the maturity, and if Eu license fails to perform its obligations, she shall lose the benefit of time and pay 300 million won as penalty.

In connection with the instant bonds, Nonparty 1 jointly and severally guaranteed the debt owed by E.I.D. to the Plaintiff.

2) On October 2010, the Plaintiff filed a claim for early redemption of the instant bonds with A.I.D., and withdrawn the claim, and agreed to postpone A.I.S. and the maturity of the instant bonds until October 30, 201, but to change the rate to 15% per annum. A.I.D. failed to pay the principal of the instant bonds until October 30, 201.

(c) Establishment of neighboring pledge rights of Dowing and Dowing Schools;

On October 29, 2009, Puatokian Private Teaching Institutes established a pledge to the Plaintiff, whose maximum amount is KRW 3.6 billion on the claim for the refund of the lease deposit of this case against Nonparty 1, which is equivalent to KRW 1.8 billion held by Puatokian Private Teaching Institutes, in order to guarantee the Plaintiff’s obligation to the Plaintiff.

D. Division agreement and ownership transfer registration between the defendant and the non-party 1

On May 29, 2012, the Defendant and Nonparty 1 prepared a written agreement on division of property (hereinafter “instant agreement on division of property”) with the following terms and conditions, and divorced on June 29, 2012. The Defendant acquired the ownership of each of the instant real estate on July 6, 2012 pursuant to the said agreement on division of property.

On November 22, 2011, the Defendant did not accept the “mortgage 1, 200,000 won with maximum debt amount, 4.2 billion won, i.e., the debtor, Samsung Mutual Savings Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant collateral”) registered on each real estate listed in the attached list No. 1, as indicated in the attached list No. 1, and the “mortgage 2,000,000 won with maximum debt amount, 360,000 won, i.e., September 4, 2003, i.e., the debtor, kiston, and kn Bank of Korea Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant collateral 2”),” registered on each real estate listed in the attached list No. 3, the “mortgage

(e) Details of obligations related to the bonds of this case by A.I.D.;

1) A producer was unable to repay the principal of the bonds to the Plaintiff by the due date of the instant bonds, and partially repaid after the due date of payment and was appropriated for the principal and damages for delay as listed below.

5. Table (units: 00. 75,00,000,000 on January 30, 2012; 143; 278; 68; 68; 68; 688; 200; 50,000 on April 6, 2012; 2,500; 306. 62,62,950; 307. 305; 405; 406. 62,07; 305; 62,00,00,000 on April 26, 2012;

2) The principal and interest of the instant bonds owed to A.I.D. for the Plaintiff as above as of January 30, 2013, based on the rate of 19% per annum, which is the rate of delay damages, from October 31, 2012 to the date of full payment, and 163,414,045 won (i.e., delay damages from October 31, 201 to October 30, 201) (i.e., interest rate of 19,64,045 won for delay damages from October 31, 2011 to October 30, 201). < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 23650, Oct. 30, 201; Presidential Decree No. 24200, Oct. 30, 2000>

3) Meanwhile, on April 19, 2013, Au License filed a petition for bankruptcy on April 19, 2013. On August 14, 2013, Au License’s trustee in bankruptcy accepted bankruptcy claims of KRW 2,065,127,743 (i.e., principal amount of KRW 1,450,000 + interest of KRW 615,127,743) as reported on July 11, 2013 by the Plaintiff on July 11, 2013.

F. Cancellation of mortgage regarding each real estate listed in the separate sheet

1) On March 21, 2012, in order to secure the right to refund the lease deposit amount of KRW 1.8 billion against Nonparty 1, the Domina Institute concluded a mortgage agreement with the maximum debt amount of KRW 2.45 billion with respect to each of the instant real estate owned by Nonparty 1, the debtor, the debtor 1, and the Domina Domina Institute with respect to the right to collateral security, and completed the registration of establishment of the instant neighboring real estate as to each of the instant real estate on the same day.

2) After December 27, 2012, the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage of the instant case was revoked on the ground of termination, and the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage of the instant case No. 1 was revoked on February 22, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 7 through 11, 17 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the claim for the refund of lease deposit

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Defendant, who succeeded to the status of the lessor under the instant lease agreement, is the obligor of the claim for refund of the lease deposit of this case, which is the object of the pledge, and is obligated to pay the Plaintiff, the pledgee, KRW 1.8 billion upon the termination of the lease agreement and the delay

B. Determination

First, it is examined whether the Defendant succeeded to the lessor’s status under the instant lease agreement from Nonparty 1, or took over the obligation to refund the lease deposit against the Dobong-do Private Teaching Institutes.

In the following circumstances, Gap evidence and Eul evidence Nos. 5 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3 comprehensively considered the overall purport of pleadings, i.e., ① the assignee of the building of this case, and the defendant does not naturally succeed to the lessor's status. ② Although the defendant acquired the ownership of the building of this case and was paid monthly rent and management expenses from Botopy Dok Dok Dok Dok Dok Dok Dok Dok Dok Dok do, but the lease contract of this case between the defendant and non-party No. 1 was concluded without any monthly rent agreement. Thus, the defendant may enter into a new lease contract with the terms of the existing lease agreement with the Dok Dok Dok Dok Dok Dok Dok 1 without succeeding to the status of the lessor, ③ the defendant was not obliged to pay approximately KRW 2.8 billion in lieu of Dok Dok 1's collateral Dok 1's collateral Dok 1's collateral Dok.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above assertion based on the premise that the Defendant is a lessor of the instant lease agreement or a transferee of the obligation to return the lease deposit is without merit.

3. Determination on the claim for cancellation of the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage

A. The plaintiff's assertion

After the Plaintiff acquired a pledge on the claim for the refund of the lease deposit of this case, the mortgage of this case was created to secure the above claim for the refund of the lease deposit of this case, and the effect of the pledge is naturally effective on the mortgage of this case due to the appendant nature of the mortgage. Thus, the Plaintiff, as a preparatory exercise of the right for the removal of interference based on the pledge of this case, sought a registration of the restoration of the registration of the creation of the neighboring mortgage of this case, which was cancelled without any justifiable cause, by subrogation of the right to claim the restoration of the registration of the creation of the neighboring mortgage of this case, with the Plaintiff’s right to claim damages as the preserved right.

B. Determination

1) First, we examine the Plaintiff’s claim for the registration of the cancellation of the instant case following the Plaintiff’s exercise of the right to claim the removal of interference.

Article 348 of the Civil Act provides that when a claim secured by a mortgage is made the object of a pledge, the registration of the mortgage shall be subject to an additional registration of the pledge (Article 348 of the Civil Act). This is naturally the object of a pledge on a claim secured by a mortgage, but if a pledge is established on a claim secured by a mortgage, the mortgage shall be the object of the pledge on a right, depending on the nature and nature of the mortgage, but if not publicly announced it, it may be a threat to transaction safety. Therefore, in light of the purport of the above provision of the Civil Act, even though a claim secured by the pledge was not the collateral at the time of the establishment of the pledge, the above provision of the Civil Act shall be applied as it is even in the case where the mortgage was established after the establishment of a pledge

Therefore, even if the right to collateral security was established to secure the claim for the return of the lease deposit of this case after the establishment of the right to collateral security, the validity of the right to collateral security cannot be deemed to have been extended to the mortgage of this case unless the plaintiff supplementary registration of the right to collateral security was made in the registration of the establishment of the right to collateral security of this case. Thus, the plaintiff's claim on the premise that the right to collateral

2) Next, the Plaintiff’s request for cancellation of the instant registration on behalf of Dopian Dopian Dopian Dopian Dopian Dopian Dopian Dopian Dopian Dopian Dopian Dopian Dopian Dopian Dopian Dopian Dopian Dopian Dopian Dopian Dopian Dopian Dopian Dopian Dopian Dopian Dopian Dopian Dopian Dopian Dop, which means the registration that has had the same effect as having not been retroactively cancelled at the time of cancellation where all or part of a registration was cancelled was cancelled, which means a case where the cancellation registration or other disposition becomes null and void, regardless of the procedural defect due to the procedural defect. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s request for cancellation of Dopian Dopian Dopian Dopian Dopian Dop was not possible (Supreme Court Decision 2001).

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Kim Yong-hoon (Presiding Judge) and Kim Jong-chul

1) The Plaintiff’s claim for damages due to the Plaintiff’s non-performance of the obligation to manage the pledged article due to the breach of the duty to manage the pledged article with due care under the contract establishing the pledge right, or the extinguishment of the Defendant’s pledged obligation due to the cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the neighboring pledge right, and the Plaintiff’s claim for damages due to the Plaintiff’s tort against the Domini Domini Dok Dok Dok Dok Dok Dok Dok Dok Dok