A. Defendant BB performed the registration of Seoul Southern District Court on the real estate listed in the separate sheet and the registration procedure for cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a mortgage completed by No. 15368 on March 5, 1992. B. Defendant Korea expressed its intention of acceptance on the registration of cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a mortgage near the above annexed list.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants.

A. AA completed the registration of the Seoul Southern District Court and the registration of the establishment of a mortgage on March 5, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as the “registration of the establishment of a mortgage”) with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as the “instant real estate”) against Defendant BB, as the maximum debt amount of KRW 2 million, the debtor AA, and the mortgagee BB, and the registration of the establishment of a mortgage on March 5, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as the “registration of the establishment of a mortgage”).

B. On November 17, 2004, the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the instant real estate from AA on November 17, 2004, and the Defendant Republic of Korea did not pay national taxes exceeding KRW 200 million, and on October 14, 2013, the Plaintiff completed the registration of seizure of collateral security claims under the name of the Defendant Republic of Korea (hereinafter “registration of seizure”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence No. 1, Evidence No. 1, Evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In the first place, the right to collateral security in this case is null and void because there is no secured debt, and even if the secured debt exists in the second place, the extinctive prescription has expired, and thus, Defendant BB is obligated to perform the procedure for registration of cancellation of the registration of the establishment of collateral security in this case, and Defendant Korea is obligated to express its consent on the registration of cancellation of the establishment

B. Defendant Republic of Korea’s assertion

(1) Defense prior to the merits

The above attachment disposition is an administrative act and fair, and the above attachment disposition was revoked.

In addition, there are no significant and clear defects in the disposition, and there are no grounds for invalidation as a matter of course.

As such, the Plaintiff’s application for cancellation of attachment against the disposition authority and pressure if such application is rejected.

civil action, aside from filing an administrative lawsuit seeking the revocation of a disposition rejecting the removal of a Chapter

Therefore, it is impossible to resolve the instant dispute through the vehicle, and thus, Defendant Republic of Korea

The instant lawsuit is unlawful.

(2) The assertion on the merits

Where registration has been completed with respect to any real estate, the cause and procedure therefor, except in extenuating circumstances.

Inasmuch as the establishment registration of this case is presumed to have been made lawfully, the establishment registration of this case is also lawful.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

C. Determination

(1) Determination as to the defense prior to the merits

The plaintiff filed for registration of cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the mortgage of this case against the defendant Republic of Korea

The above seizure disposition which was taken as an administrative act only with the expression of consent;

As such, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant Republic of Korea was accepted.

Even if there is no problem that the attachment disposition is contrary to the fairness of the administrative agency.

Therefore, the defendant Republic of Korea's defense is without merit without further review.

(2) Determination as to the merits (determination as to the main cause of action)

The right to collateral security determines only the maximum amount of the debt to be secured and reserving the determination of the debt in the future.

set as a security, a number of unspecified claims arising from a continuous transaction;

security interest created for the purpose of securing a certain limit in the period of settlement of accounts; and

the secured claim of the right to collateral should be established separately from the act of establishing the right to collateral security.

C. Whether there was a legal act establishing the secured claim of the right to collateral at the time of establishment of the right to collateral security

The burden of proof is on the part of the assertion of its existence (Supreme Court Decision 2009.12. 2009).

24. On the other hand, where a claim with a right to collateral security is seized, the lower court’s order

The purpose of entering and registering the seizure of the secured debt by means of additional registration in the registration of creation of the party right.

the secured claim of the right to collateral security is attached, and the secured claim of the right to collateral security is subordinate to the secured right.

Since the right of seizure also becomes effective to disclose the seizure of the secured claim, it is aimed at disclosing the seizure of the secured claim;

If there is no secured claim of the right to collateral security, the seizure order shall be null and void; and

Where a seizure authority cancels a right to collateral security, he/she shall have a third party with an interest in registration.

An obligor is obligated to express his/her consent with respect to cancellation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003, May 28, 2004).

C.041 see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 70041

- 5-

Thus, when the plaintiff primarily establishes the secured debt at the time of the registration of the establishment of the neighboring mortgage of this case

J. In the instant case disputing that there was no legal act, at the time of the registration of the establishment of the neighboring mortgage of the instant case

The burden of proving that there was a legal act establishing the secured claim is a claim.

The defendants are deemed to exist, and there is no evidence to prove it, and eventually, the root of this case

The mortgage is null and void. Accordingly, Defendant BB should not establish the mortgage of this case against the Plaintiff.

of this case’s pressure based on the invalid collateral security

Defendant Republic of Korea, the nominal owner of the registration of the Category, is a third party having an interest in the registration of the Category.

There is a duty to express the intention of acceptance in relation to the cancellation registration of right establishment.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case against the defendants shall be accepted on the grounds of all the claims of this case.

this decision is delivered with the assent of all Justices.