2. The Plaintiff is responsible for total costs of litigation between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

The defendant expressed his/her intention to accept the registration of cancellation of the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage completed on February 20, 2012 by the Seoul Central District Court No. 34314.

2. Purport of appeal

The same shall apply to the order.

A. On February 2012, the Plaintiff agreed to obtain a loan of KRW 20 million from Co-Defendant B Co-Defendant B (hereinafter “B”) at the first instance trial (hereinafter “the instant loan”). In order to secure the Plaintiff’s claim for the instant loan, the Plaintiff set up a collateral of KRW 30 million with respect to the real estate owned by the Plaintiff, which was the basis of the maximum debt amount. On February 20, 2012, the establishment registration of a collateral (hereinafter “the creation registration of a collateral”) was completed on the 20th of the same month.

B. B, on February 28, 2012, to secure the Defendant’s obligation to the Defendant, set up a pledge on the instant loan claims (hereinafter “mortgage”) against the Defendant. On February 29, 2012, the Seoul Central District Court registered the establishment of a pledge on the instant loan claims as Seoul Central District Court’s registry No. 43961, Feb. 29, 2012.

C. B notified the Plaintiff of the fact at the time of establishing the pledge of the instant claim, and on March 28, 2012, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 400,000 to the Defendant’s husband E as the interest of the instant loan.

D. On January 21, 2013, the Plaintiff transferred 20,483,400 won of the principal and interest of the instant loan to D representative director D.

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence No. 1-2, Eul evidence No. 2-1, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the Plaintiff fully repaid the loan of this case to B, the registration of creation of mortgage of this case shall be cancelled. The Defendant, who is a pledgee of the right to collateral security on the loan of this case, is a third party with an interest in the registration, and is obliged to accept the registration of cancellation of the registration of creation of mortgage of this case.

B. Determination

The issue of whether a third party who has interest in the registration is liable to accept the registration of cancellation is determined by the substantive law in relation to the right holder to the registration of cancellation. Based on these legal principles, the issue of this case was examined, and that B established the pledge right of this case for the purpose of the right to the loan of this case and notified the Plaintiff of this fact. Accordingly, even if the third party obligor pays the loan of this case to B, the Plaintiff, who is the third obligor, cannot set up against the Defendant as the pledgee (Article 349(1) and Article 352 of the Civil Act). Therefore, even if the Plaintiff paid the loan of this case in full, even if the Plaintiff paid the loan of this case to B, the Defendant may still set up the pledge right of this case, and there is no other evidence to prove that the Defendant has the obligation to accept the registration of cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a mortgage of the neighboring area of this case. Accordingly, the Plaintiff

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant is dismissed as it is without merit. Since the part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance as to this conclusion is unfair, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Jong-chul

Judges Kim Dong-gu