A. As to the instant real estate owned by the Plaintiff on May 26, 2005, the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter “the instant neighboring mortgage”) or the instant mortgage (hereinafter “the instant registered mortgage”) was completed on May 20, 2005, under Article 21891, which was received by the Changwon District Court Dao District Court 21891, the maximum debt amount was KRW 300,000,000,000, the debtor as the Plaintiff, the mortgagee, and the mortgagee as C, and the grounds for registration.

B. On February 27, 2006, with regard to the registration of the establishment of the creation of the neighboring mortgage of this case, D, which was the Defendant’s attachment to the Defendant, and the reason for registration was completed on February 27, 2006, with regard to the transfer of the right to collateral security by contract transfer, and on May 6, 2011, the supplementary registration of the transfer of the right to collateral security was completed on May 6, 201 with the Defendant, the mortgagee of the right to collateral security, and the reason for registration,

C. On February 9, 2006, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 10,000,000 to C, and KRW 50,000,000 on December 11, 2006, and KRW 220,00,000 on December 18, 2006, respectively.

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 and 2, each of the statements 1 and 2

2. Summary of both parties' arguments;

A. On May 20, 2005, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 300,000,000 from C, and granted C the instant right to collateral security.

Before the secured claim is determined, the right to collateral security may be transferred by a three-party contract between the mortgagee, the mortgagee, and the assignee. There was no three-party agreement between C, the Plaintiff, and D to transfer the instant right to collateral security, and there was no fact that the secured claim was transferred from C to D, and the Plaintiff did not receive any notification of transfer regarding the transfer of the instant right to collateral security. Thus, the transfer of the instant right to collateral security is null and void.

In addition, in relation to the right to collateral security, the mortgagee and creditor should be the same person. Since D is not a creditor, it is invalid that the right to collateral security in this case transferred to D.

The mortgagee of the instant right to collateral security is still called C, and the Plaintiff, from February 9, 2006 to December 18, 2006, remitted the sum of KRW 380,000,000 to C, with all of the secured obligations.