A. On January 17, 2014, the Plaintiff acquired ownership on the grounds of inheritance, while the Plaintiff owned C (her husband of the Plaintiff) the land of 1859 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

The defendant is a corporation established for the purpose of manufacturing and selling diverse bread products.

B. Around 1999, the Plaintiff’s deceptive act concluded a sales agency contract with the Defendant for bread products and sold the products from the Defendant. As to the instant land as security deposit under the franchise agreement, the Daegu District Court’s Cheongdo Office of Registry No. 1633, Dec. 17, 1999, completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage with the Defendant as the obligor C and the mortgagee.

(hereinafter referred to as “first collateral security”) c.

In addition, the Daegu District Court rendered on February 5, 2009, as the receipt of No. 4148 on February 5, 2009, with respect to the Daegu Suwon-gu E apartment No. 202, 702 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) owned D, the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage was terminated with the maximum debt amount of KRW 370 million, the debtor D, and the mortgagee as the defendant (hereinafter “the second mortgage”) (hereinafter “the second mortgage”) and the cancellation on August 10, 2012.

The transaction between the defendant and D was interrupted on August 10, 2012.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 2 and 4

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserted that ① the Defendant, under an agreement with D on February 4, 2009, set up a second collateral security on the instant apartment instead of exempting the Defendant from the secured obligation of the first collateral security, and the second collateral security was cancelled on August 10, 2012 due to the repayment of the secured obligation. Ultimately, the first collateral security obligation does not exist, and ② the second collateral security obligation is not so.

Even if the secured obligation of the first right to collateral security is based on the merchant's claim for the price of the goods, and the three-year short-term extinctive prescription is applied, and the defendant and D have already passed three years since August 10, 2012 when the transaction between the defendant and D was completed, therefore, the registration of the first right to collateral security should be cancelled.

(1) The defendant shall be the 1.