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

A. The plaintiff on 11, 1998

3. Jeonyang-gun, Jeonyang-gun, Jeonyang-gun, a forest land of 1,578 square meters (hereinafter “instant real estate”) was awarded a successful bid in the compulsory auction procedure and acquired the ownership thereof.

B. On November 5, 1998 between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a mortgage agreement with the obligor and the Defendant as the Defendant regarding the instant real estate, and the maximum debt amount of KRW 13,00,000,000, and the Plaintiff and the creditor and the mortgagee as the Defendant. The registration of the establishment of a mortgage (hereinafter “registration of establishment of a mortgage”) was completed as of November 9, 1998, the Seoyang District Court’s New Registry No. 14662, supra.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion decided to distribute profits if the Plaintiff sold the instant real estate by winning a successful bid with Nonparty D at the time the Plaintiff was awarded a successful bid, and the Plaintiff completed the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage with the Defendant as a collateral security holder in order to secure the aforementioned profit distribution amount at D’s request.

However, since the Plaintiff only traded with D and did not engage in monetary transactions with the Defendant, the registration of the establishment of the mortgage of this case is the registration of invalidity of cause for which the secured obligation does not exist, and not so.

Even if the secured obligation of the instant right to collateral security was extinguished upon the completion of prescription.

Therefore, the registration of the establishment of the neighboring mortgage of this case should be cancelled.

B. (1) There is no evidence to acknowledge that the registration of the establishment of the instant mortgage was the registration of invalidity of cause for which the secured claim does not exist from the beginning as to the non-existence of the secured obligation.

Rather, even according to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the instant right to collateral security was established to secure the payment of profits arising from the sale of the instant real estate. In full view of the fact of the recognition, grounds for recognition, and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff and the Defendant