A. On November 5, 1987, the Plaintiff completed the registration of preservation of ownership as to the 176 square meters in Yangyang-gun, Yangyang-gun (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. On July 6, 2002, the Defendant completed the registration of establishment of the right to collateral security (hereinafter “instant right to collateral security”) as to the instant land by the Yangyang District Court No. 7274, the Yangyang District Court received the maximum debt amount of KRW 5,00,000, and the debtor D and the mortgagee as the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts to the effect that "The secured debt of the instant right to collateral security has not occurred or has occurred, but has expired due to the repayment or extinctive prescription, the defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for cancellation of the registration of cancellation of the establishment of the instant right to collateral security."

In this regard, the defendant asserts to the effect that "the secured debt of the instant right to collateral security still exists, and therefore it is impossible to respond to the plaintiff's claim."

3. The judgment of the court below is a mortgage established by setting only the maximum amount of the debt to be secured and reserving the determination of the debt in the future (Article 357(1) of the Civil Act). Since multiple unspecified claims arising from continuous business relations are established for the purpose of securing a certain limit in the future settlement period, there is a legal act establishing the secured claim of the right to collateral separate from the act of establishing the right to collateral, and the burden of proof as to whether there was a legal act establishing the secured claim of the right to collateral at the time of establishing the right to collateral security exists.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da107408, Apr. 28, 2011). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no evidence to prove that there was a legal act establishing the secured claim of the instant right to collateral security, and even if there is no evidence to prove that the secured claim of the instant right to collateral security was the instant case.