A. As to the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “instant real estate”), the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the Plaintiff was completed on May 9, 2006 by the Suwon District Court of Suwon (U.S. 83248).

B. On April 10, 2014, the Suwon District Court, Samwon-si registry, 56803, which received on April 10, 2014, the maximum debt amount of KRW 650,000,000, the debtor C Co., Ltd (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) and the mortgagee of the right to collateral security (hereinafter “the establishment registration of the right to collateral security”) completed the establishment registration of the right to collateral security as the defendant (hereinafter “the right to collateral security”).

C. On April 4, 2014, the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and the Nonparty Company, etc. drafted a written agreement as indicated in the attached Table 2 (hereinafter “instant written agreement”) with respect to the legal relations, including the registration of establishment of the instant neighboring mortgage.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 through 3, purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's main claim

A. A. A summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The registration of the establishment of a mortgage of this case was established in order to secure a monetary obligation, such as the principal amount of KRW 330,000,000,000, which is owed by the Nonparty Company to the Defendant. However, the principal and interest of KRW 330,000,000, which was borrowed by the Nonparty Company until June 24, 2014, was fully repaid on and around November 2015. Therefore, the Defendant, the owner of the instant real estate, is obliged to implement the registration procedure for cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a mortgage of this case. (2) The secured collateral obligation guaranteed by the registration of the establishment of a mortgage of this case by the Defendant’s assertion, is not only the loan obligation owed by the Nonparty Company to the Defendant, but also

However, the non-party company did not perform its promise despite the agreement to offer electrical construction to the defendant, and thereby, the damage was incurred to the defendant above KRW 53,418,629.