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

(a) Registration of establishment of neighboring superficies and establishment of superficies;

1) On February 7, 2006, Nonparty 5 and Nonparty 6 purchased each of the following real estate from the Plaintiff in the price of KRW 470,00,000,00: (a) the Plaintiff offered each of the following real estate to the Defendant as security; (b) Nonparty 1, who is Nonparty 5’s wife, obtained a loan from the Defendant; (c) Nonparty 5 guaranteed the Defendant’s debt against Nonparty 1; and (d) paid the loan from the Defendant to the Plaintiff for the purchase price.

2) On February 9, 2006, the Plaintiff entered into a mortgage contract with the Defendant (hereinafter “mortgage contract of this case”) with the following contents, and accordingly, the registration of establishment of a neighboring real estate, such as the written claim, was completed regarding each real estate mentioned below.

3) In addition, on February 9, 2006, the Plaintiff entered into a superficies contract with the Defendant for the duration of each of the following real estate from February 9, 2006 to 30 years (hereinafter “instant superficies contract”). Accordingly, the registration of creation of superficies, such as the written claim, was completed regarding each of the following real estate.

The subject matter of Table ○ located within the main text: The maximum debt amount of 0,000,000 won for forest land of 5,000 square meters in Incheon-gun ( Address 7 omitted) Incheon-gun ( Address 7 omitted), 1219 square meters in forest land of 1219 square meters: The creditor holding the right to collateral security: The debtor holding the right to collateral security: The scope of the debtor holding the right to collateral security: The limited collateral security (the debtor does not specify the types of transactions, but does not specify the types of transactions) for all obligations currently and future due to the following transactions: 350,000,000 won:

B. Conclusion of loan contracts

1) On February 10, 2006, the Defendant entered into a loan agreement with Nonparty 1 (hereinafter “first loan agreement”) with the following terms and conditions, and Nonparty 5 jointly and severally guaranteed the Defendant’s loan obligations against Nonparty 1.

The title of ○ loan contained in the main sentence: Mutual financial loan (fund for business use): 250,00,000 won loan starting date: February 10, 2006; expiration date: ○ interest rate on February 10, 2009: 9.6% per annum; 18% interest rate on February 10, 2009: 18% per annum; and 18% interest rate and method: The date and method of payment shall be paid on the expiration date of the loan period; Defendant’s settlement date.

2) On February 10, 2006, the Defendant paid KRW 250,000,000 to the Plaintiff, who is a seller of property to secure another’s property and a seller’s property to secure another’s property through an agreement with Nonparty 5 and the Plaintiff.

(c) Partial repayment of loans 1;

1) On May 29, 2006, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with Nonparty 2, with the content that: (a) the Plaintiff shall sell to KRW 190,000,000 the price of KRW 190,000,000,000,000,000 in Incheon Strengthening-gun ( Address 8 omitted); (b) 1219,000 square meters in forest land ( Address 2 omitted); and (c) 500,000 square meters in forest land (where the parcel number of land is entered, the Plaintiff shall omitted the indication of “○○○○ Dong-gun, Incheon-gun,” and (d) Nonparty 2 shall substitute Nonparty 1’s acquisition of the obligation of loans under the first loan contract with the Defendant.

2) Meanwhile, the forest land of 500 square meters was divided into ( Address 1 omitted) 1095 square meters on September 6, 2006 ( Address 1 omitted), forest land of 1095 square meters, ( Address 4 omitted), forest land of 92 square meters, and ( Address 10 omitted) forest land of 2913 square meters on forest land.

3) In accordance with the above sales contract, Nonparty 2 completed the registration of ownership transfer on September 20, 2006 ( Address 8 omitted), ( Address 2 omitted), 1219 square meters, and forest land of 1095 square meters. On October 2, 2006, Nonparty 2 subrogated for the principal amount of KRW 80,000,000 out of the first loan obligation of Nonparty 1 with respect to the Defendant of Nonparty 1 250,000,000.

4) On October 2, 2006, the Defendant carried out the registration procedure for cancellation of registration of creation of a superficies under the Defendant’s name, which completed the registration of cancellation of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage in the Defendant’s name with respect to a forest of 1219 square meters and ( Address 2 omitted) forest of 1095 square meters, as well as the registration procedure for cancellation of registration of creation of a superficies under the Defendant’s name, which completed the registration of cancellation of the establishment of a superficies

(d) Division of land subject to mortgage and transfer of ownership;

1) The Plaintiff’s real estate provided as security for the obligation to loan No. 1 based on the partial payment by Nonparty 2 had only KRW 992 square meters of forests and fields divided into ( Address 1 omitted), KRW 1000 square meters of forests and fields ( Address 4 omitted), KRW 2913 square meters of forests and fields, and KRW 1219 square meters of forests and fields (attached Form 1). Nonparty 4 completed the registration of ownership transfer on November 7, 2006 with respect to forest land of KRW 1219 square meters of forests and fields (attached Table 1).

2) In addition, on November 7, 2006, the registration conversion and division of forest land of 992 square meters and forest land of 2913 square meters were made as follows. On the same day, each registration of ownership transfer was completed in the names of Nonparty 4 and Nonparty 3 as follows (hereinafter above, the registration of the establishment of neighboring real estate and the registration of the creation of superficies are completed as stated in the separate sheet among the registration of the establishment of neighboring land and the registration of the creation of superficies as stated in the separate sheet as to each real estate listed in the registration of the establishment of superficies (hereinafter referred to as the “registration of the establishment of neighboring land of this case and the “registration of the creation of superficies of this case”).

On November 7, 2006, in the attached Table 2006, Nonparty 3 ( Address 4 omitted) Nonparty 3 ( Address 4 omitted), 752 square meters of forest and 992 square meters of forest and 752 square meters of forest and 242 square meters of forest and 2913 square meters of forest and 2874 square meters of forest ( Address 10 omitted) located in the attached Table 2006, and after the registration conversion into 2874 square meters of forest and 2913 square meters of forest and ( Address 3 omitted), Plaintiff 3 ( Address 5 omitted), Nonparty 3 ( Address 5 omitted) of 700 square meters of forest and 700 square meters of forest and 700 square meters of forest and 700 square meters of forest, Nonparty 4(5) ( Address 13 omitted), Nonparty 6, 180/360 of forest and 360 square meters of forest and 360/360 shares, as follows:

E. Conclusion of an additional loan agreement

On the other hand, Nonparty 1 did not pay KRW 170,00,000 of the remainder of the loan principal even after February 10, 2009, which is the expiration date of the first loan contract. On December 31, 2009, the Defendant entered into a loan contract with Nonparty 1 (hereinafter “second loan contract”) with the following contents.

The subject of ○ loan contained in the main sentence: The starting date of loans 230,000,000 won: December 31, 2009; the expiration date of loans: 00% per annum: 8.26% per annum; and the delay interest rate: 17.26% per annum on December 31, 2012: The date and method of payment shall be paid on the expiration date of the lending period. The date and method of payment of interest shall be paid on the full payment every three months.

F. Request for auction to exercise a security right and the result of the plaintiff's objection

1) On February 3, 2012, the Defendant filed an application for a voluntary auction on each real estate listed in the separate sheet in Incheon District Court Decision 2012Ma8446 on February 3, 2012, and the said court rendered a decision to commence auction on February 6, 2012 on each real estate listed in the separate sheet.

2) The Plaintiff filed an objection against the decision at the time of auction as Incheon District Court 2013Tagi 1181. However, the said court dismissed the Plaintiff’s objection on April 23, 2013, and the Plaintiff filed an appeal against the said decision as prescribed by 2013Ra363 in the same court. However, the said court dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on January 13, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy facts, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-1 through 6, Gap evidence 3, 5, Gap evidence 7-1, 2, Gap evidence 8-1 through 3, Gap evidence 9-1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 3 through 5, Eul evidence 7 through 12, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the main claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the registration of the establishment of the instant superficies did not exist as follows, and that the registration of the establishment of the instant superficies was completed together with the registration of the establishment of the instant neighboring superficies for the purpose of securing the claim, and sought cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the instant neighboring superficies and the registration of the establishment of the instant superficies

1) In entering into the instant mortgage contract, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to a settlement term in a future designated form, and the future designated type of payment does not specify the maturity period, and the extinctive prescription of the first loan obligation was expired at the time of the occurrence of the claim, and the extinctive prescription was completed on February 9, 201. In addition, on February 10, 2006, the day following the date of the instant mortgage contract, the Defendant entered into the first loan contract with Nonparty 1, and set the maturity period on February 10, 2009. If the settlement term of the instant mortgage contract is extended to the maturity period of the first loan contract, it is in violation of Article 184(2) of the Civil Act that limits the extension or increase of the extinctive prescription period, and thus, is invalid.

2) The second loan contract was concluded between the defendant and the non-party 1 while the plaintiff was excluded, and it was concluded ten months after the due date of the first loan contract. In light of this, the second loan contract constitutes a new loan contract or a novation. This is in violation of the purport of Article 184(2) of the Civil Act that limits the extension or increase of extinctive prescription. Thus, the second loan contract cannot be acknowledged as valid.

3) In addition, there was an agreement in the first loan agreement that did not designate a settlement term for the settlement of accounts, which means the waiver of the right to substitution, and even if the second loan agreement constitutes a substitution, it has no effect in violation of the waiver agreement of right to substitution.

B. Determination

1) Whether the extinctive prescription is run from the date of the instant mortgage contract

A mortgage is a mortgage established by settling 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). It is a security right secured by which the debt actually exists in the future during the settlement term within the scope of the registered maximum debt amount. Here, the settlement term refers to the period during which the secured debt is determined and does not mean the period during which the secured debt is due

In full view of the purport of the argument in Gap evidence No. 1, the plaintiff entered into the mortgage contract of this case and designates a future settlement term of the right to collateral security in the form of designation. In the case of the right to collateral security for which the settlement term is designated in the future, the document of the right to collateral security shall designate a settlement term of the right to collateral security upon written notice; however, the settlement term shall be 14 days after the date of notice; if it falls short of this, the settlement term shall be 14 days after the date of notice; and if it is short of this, the settlement term shall be 14 days after the date of notice." Thus, since the contents of the settlement term set forth in the mortgage contract of this case affect the due date of the secured obligation, the extinction of the first obligation shall not be deemed to have run from the date of the contract of this case, since the first obligation

2) As to the legal nature of the second loan contract

Realistically, a repayment of the so-called repayment of an existing obligation by providing new loan only formally without providing and receiving funds constitutes a separate loan, but in substance, it is merely an extension of the maturity of the existing obligation, barring special circumstances. Therefore, the legal nature of the existing obligation is still regarded as a quasi-loan for consumption continuing to exist while maintaining its identity. In such a case, unless there are special circumstances such as an agreement to be exempted from liability for guarantee where a new loan is exchanged in advance between the obligee and the guarantor (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da16077 delivered on February 27, 1998, etc.).

The fact that the second loan contract was concluded on December 31, 2009, which was ten months after the due date of the first loan contract, and the fact that there are somewhat differences in the interest rate, delay interest rate, and interest payment period stipulated in the first loan contract and the second loan contract are as seen earlier. In full view of each of the statements in the evidence Nos. 8 and 10, the fact that part of interest obligations under the first loan contract was changed into the principal obligation of the second loan contract and the second loan contract was changed into the principal obligation.

On the other hand, the following facts are established by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of arguments as to Eul evidence Nos. 1 and Eul evidence Nos. 8 through 10, namely, ① the defendant did not pay 230,000,000 won of loans under the second loan contract to non-party 1; however, the non-party 1 treated the principal and interest obligation of the first loan as repayment instead of the new obligation of loans under the second loan contract; ② the defendant prepared a new loan contract with non-party 1 with respect to the second loan contract, but actually did not investigate the new credit of the non-party 1 or receive actual funds by performing the former repayment and new loan without using the former loan as a substitute for the first loan contract on the former sheet and account book, ③ In light of the fact that the first loan contract and the second loan contract are "general loan" to which the new loan contract are applied, and the loan amount is equal to the loan amount of loan under the second loan contract or loan contract with the second loan contract with the first loan contract with the first loan contract with the same repayment method as the second loan contract with the second loan loan contract with the first loan loan contract with the same interest loan loan.

3) Determination as to the assertion of the waiver of right to exchange

The plaintiff did not specify a settlement term at the time of the first loan contract, and it should be deemed that there was an agreement to waive the right to refund. However, in the case of the first loan contract of this case, the settlement term of the right to collateral security stated that "the mortgagee of the right to collateral security may designate a settlement term upon written notice (if three years have elapsed from the date of the contract, it shall be omitted)" in the case of the future designated type of the right to collateral security, as seen earlier. It is reasonable to deem that the plaintiff and the defendant reserved the designation of a settlement term at the time of the contract of this case to the plaintiff as the person who created the right to collateral security at the time of the contract of this case. Even if the settlement term was not specified as alleged by the plaintiff, it is not reasonable to deem that the plaintiff or the debtor of

C. Sub-committee

As long as the extinctive prescription of loan obligation cannot be deemed to take place from the date of the instant contract to establish a mortgage, it cannot be deemed that the conclusion of a loan contract and a second loan contract violates Article 184(2) of the Civil Act that limits the extension or increase of extinctive prescription. Since the establishment registration of a mortgage of this case, which is the security for loan obligation, remains effective as it is against the second loan obligation arising from the substitution, the secured obligation guaranteed by the establishment registration of a mortgage of this case remains in existence, and there is no ground for the Plaintiff’s assertion that there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the waiver

3. Determination on the conjunctive claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) On October 2, 2006, Nonparty 2 purchased a forest land of 1219 square meters from the Plaintiff ( Address 8 omitted), ( Address 2 omitted), and forest land of 1095 square meters from the Plaintiff, on the part of Nonparty 1’s Defendant, subrogated for KRW 80,000,000 among the first loan obligations against Nonparty 1’s Defendant. Of Nonparty 1’s remaining loan obligations of KRW 170,000,000 against the Defendant, Nonparty 1 paid the remainder amount of KRW 80,00,000 on the part of Nonparty 1’s Defendant. Accordingly, Nonparty 1’s loan obligations remain as principal amounting to KRW 90,00,000.

2) In addition, on November 13, 2006, the Defendant cancelled the registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage on the ground of partial abandonment on November 10, 2006, with respect to the size of 750 square meters of forest land and 700 square meters of forest land owned by Nonparty 3 ( Address 4 omitted), which was offered as a security for the loan obligation on November 13, 2006, and on the size of 360 square meters of forest land on February 9, 201, the registration of alteration was completed on the ground of Nonparty 3’s share of 180/360 on February 9, 201, which was based on the waiver of Nonparty 3’s share of 3180/360. This is an act infringing on the Plaintiff’s right of proportional distribution.

3) Despite Nonparty 2’s exemption from the obligation of loans as above, the Defendant received interest after October 2, 2006, and thus, the remaining amount of the secured claim after deducting interest was KRW 58,868,504, and the amount of the secured claim to be borne by the Plaintiff in the event that the Defendant did not unreasonably infringe the Plaintiff’s right to proportional distribution, the amount of the secured claim to be borne by the Plaintiff is KRW 29,434,252, which is KRW 58,868,504, and the amount of the secured claim to be borne by the Plaintiff in the event that Nonparty 2 did not unfairly infringe the Plaintiff’s right to proportional distribution. As the Defendant asserted the amount of the secured claim of the instant secured claim of the instant secured claim, it is the first preliminary claim to confirm that the amount of the secured claim

4) If the Plaintiff’s assertion of infringement on the right to proportional apportionment is not accepted, it is the second preliminary claim to confirm that the secured amount of the instant mortgage registration and the registration of creation of superficies is KRW 58,868,504.

B. Determination

1) Determination as to Nonparty 2’s assertion of exemption from liability and performance on January 6, 2010

The defendant asserts that the principal among the loan debt 1 remains 90,000,000 won, since the non-party 2 purchased ( Address 8 omitted), 1219 square meters and 1095 square meters of forest land ( Address 1 omitted), on September 29, 2006, the non-party 1 discharged 80,000,000 out of the loan debt 1 against the non-party 1, and on January 6, 2010, the non-party 1 discharged 90,000 won. According to the records of evidence No. 7-2, the non-party 2 did not have any other evidence that the non-party 2 purchased 1219,129,000 square meters of forest land ( Address 2 omitted), and the non-party 2 did not have any other evidence that recognized the non-party 1’s establishment registration was cancelled on September 29, 206, the non-party 2016, the non-party 2016, and the non-party 16.

2) Judgment on the assertion on infringement of the Plaintiff’s right to proportional distribution

The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant infringed the Plaintiff’s right to divide the portion of the right to collateral security, which is the surety’s property, by completing the registration of change on February 9, 2011, on the ground of partial abandonment on November 10, 2006 with respect to the non-party 3’s ( Address 4 omitted) forest land and ( Address 5 omitted) forest land and 700 square meters, which were offered as security on November 13, 2006, which were owned by the Defendant as well as the non-party 3’s ( Address 4 omitted) forest land and 700 square meters of forest land. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant violated the Plaintiff’s right to divide the portion of the right to collateral security, which is the surety’s property, by granting the registration of change on the ground of the non-party 3’s share 180/360 on February 9, 201. However, even if the Defendant’s act of waiver of the right to collateral security constitutes an infringement on the Plaintiff’s expected interest, the Plaintiff’s assertion does not have merit.

3) Sub-decisions

Therefore, the plaintiff's first preliminary claim and the second preliminary claim are without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiff's main claims and the main claims of the first and second preliminary claims shall be dismissed as they are without merit, and the judgment of the first and second preliminary claims of the court of first instance which dismissed the plaintiff's main claims are legitimate as they are concluded. Thus, all of the plaintiff's appeal and second preliminary claims added in the trial are dismissed as they are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Within the scope of the judge (Presiding Judge)

(1) Meanwhile, on September 4, 2007, a forest land of 1095 square meters was changed into the registration conversion and land category. (2) On the other hand, on September 4, 2007, a forest land of 1095 square meters.