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

A. The supplementary registration before the relevant legal doctrine is a subordinate to the registration of the establishment of a new principal registry, which is a registration of the establishment of a new principal registry, and thus, the secured obligation is extinguished, or when the registration of the establishment of a new principal registry is null and void, only the cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a new principal registry, and the supplementary registration is cancelled ex officio upon cancellation of the principal registration, even if the former registration is not separately seeking cancellation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Da7550, May 26, 1995). Thus, seeking cancellation of the supplementary registration is unlawful as there is no benefit in protecting rights, in principle

However, in cases where only the cause of transfer of the right to collateral security has been invalidated, cancelled or cancelled, that is, the principal registration of the right to collateral security itself, on the premise that it is effective, and in cases where the effect of the additional registration is asserted on the ground that only the supplementary registration of the right to collateral security has been void, there is a need to file a lawsuit to cancel the additional

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da15412, 15429 delivered on June 10, 2005). B.

According to the records on the panel, on March 14, 2012, the registration of the establishment of the right to collateral security was completed with respect to the instant real estate on March 14, 2012, with the Plaintiff, the mortgagee, E, and the maximum debt amount of KRW 3 billion; the registration of the establishment of the right to collateral security was completed in sequence on May 25, 2016 on the registration of the establishment of the right to collateral security; and the registration of the transfer in the name of F limited liability company and G company on the ground of the transfer of the right to collateral security in the name of G,

However, in full view of the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff consistently asserts that the registration of collateral security itself in the name of G is erroneous, and thus, the instant lawsuit seeking only cancellation of the instant supplementary registration cannot be deemed to have the benefit of protecting the rights.

3. Conclusion Lawsuits in this case