2. Korea;

A. Defendant HB implements the procedure for cancellation registration made on February 22, 2017 with respect to the registration of establishment of the neighboring mortgage completed under No. 44561, Oct. 16, 2014 with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet, for the cancellation on February 22, 2017;

B. The defendant Republic of Korea has expressed its intention of acceptance on the registration of cancellation as described in the above paragraph (a).

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

A. On October 15, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a mortgage agreement with Defendant HaB on each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant real estate”) with regard to each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant real estate”), and completed the establishment registration of the neighboring mortgage on October 16, 2014.

B. The Defendant Republic of Korea seized the secured debt of the instant right to collateral security on July 9, 2015, following Defendant HB’s failure to pay national taxes, and completed the registration of seizure of collateral security right to the instant real estate on July 20, 2015.

2. Claim against Defendant Republic of Korea

A. Determination on the cause of the claim

Since the right to collateral security is established for the purpose of securing a certain limit in a settlement term for the future a large number of unspecified claims arising from a continuous transaction. Thus, separate from the act of establishing the right to collateral security, there must be a legal act establishing the secured claim of the right to collateral security, and the burden of proof as to whether a legal act establishing the secured claim has been committed has the burden of proving its existence (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da72070, Dec. 24, 2009).

On the other hand, where a claim with a right to collateral security is seized, the purpose of registering the seizure of the right to collateral security by means of additional registration in the establishment registration of the right to collateral security is to publicly announce the seizure of the right to collateral security because the seizure of the right to collateral security, which is a subordinate right by the accompanied nature of the right to collateral security, has the effect on the seizure of the right to collateral security. If the right to collateral security does not exist, the seizure order shall be null and void. In case of cancelling the right to collateral security, the seizure right holder shall be a third party with an interest in the registration and have the duty to express his/her consent to the cancellation of the right to collateral security (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2

In the instant case where the Plaintiff asserted that there was no legal act establishing the secured claim at the time of the registration of the establishment of the neighboring mortgage, the burden of proof as to whether the Plaintiff bears the secured obligation against the Defendant HB, a mortgagee, is in the Republic of Korea, claiming its existence.

B. Determination on Defendant Republic of Korea’s assertion

Even if the Plaintiff rescinded the instant mortgage contract on the ground of Defendant HB’s nonperformance, the Defendant Republic of Korea claims that the Defendant Republic of Korea is a third party protected at the time of rescission of the contract, but since the Defendant Republic of Korea’s seized object is not a collateral security but a collateral security, it should be premised on the Plaintiff and Defendant HB’s juristic act generating the secured claim and the cancellation of the said juristic act in order to be protected as it constitutes a third party under the proviso of Article 548(1) of the Civil Act. In this case, the Plaintiff and Defendant HB do not recognize the fact that the Plaintiff and Defendant BB performed a juristic act establishing the secured claim, and thus, there is no room to apply the proviso of Article 548(1) of the Civil Act. Accordingly, the

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.