If the right to collateral security is not established on the whole ownership due to the mistake of public official in charge of the establishment of the right to collateral security, the change of the right to collateral security should be implemented.

If the right to collateral security is not established on the whole ownership due to the mistake of public official in charge of the establishment of the right to collateral security, the change of the right to collateral security should be implemented.

2014-Fix-53987 Demanding acceptance of rectification of registration of right to collateral security.

AAA(1) Specialized Company

Republic of Korea 2

2015.05.01

2016.05.22

1. As to the real estate listed in Attachment 2:

A. On August 27, 2002, Defendant KK carries out the procedure of filing for rectification registration to the effect that “the establishment of all of the equity interests of KK No. 1, 1, and all of the equity interests of KK” is “the establishment of all the equity interests of KK No. 1, 1, and all the equity interests of KK No. 2, 2002,” as “the establishment of all the equity interests of KK No.

B. The defendant Republic of Korea and the Won-si expressed their intention of each acceptance on the registration of correction as described in Paragraph A above.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants.

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 23, 2002, Defendant KK and PPP completed the registration of ownership transfer on each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the "No. 101 of the building in this case"), the real estate listed in paragraph 2 of the same list (hereinafter referred to as the "No. 101 of the building in this case"), the real estate listed in paragraph 3 of the same list (hereinafter referred to as the "No. 401 of the building in this case"), the real estate listed in paragraph 4 of the same list (hereinafter referred to as the "No. 501 of the building in this case"), the real estate listed in paragraph 5 of the same list (hereinafter referred to as the "No. 601 of the building in this case"), the real estate listed in paragraph 6 of the same list (hereinafter referred to as the "No. 701 of the building in this case"), each of the co-ownership of the building in this case for each of the co-ownership of the building in this case.

B. On August 27, 2002, the National Bank of Korea (hereinafter referred to as the “National Bank of Korea”) concluded a mortgage agreement between Defendant KK and the National Bank with respect to subparagraph 101 of the building of this case with respect to the maximum debt amount of 592,80,00,000 won, as to subparagraph 101 of the building of this case, with respect to the maximum debt amount of 1,769,30,000 won, and the maximum debt amount of 828,100,000 won with respect to subparagraph 401 of the building of this case, as to subparagraph 501 of the building of this case, with respect to subparagraph 74,80,000 won with the maximum debt amount of 798,200,000 won, and with respect to subparagraph 601 of the building of this case, the Incheon District Court shall accept each of the above mortgage creation agreement with respect to subparagraph 1 of the building of this case as a comprehensive mortgage agreement.

C. On the purpose of registration No. 101 of the registry of each remaining building No. 101, except for the instant building No. 101, the entire shares of Defendant KK and the entire shares of Defendant KKK No. 2 are registered as the “establishment of the entire shares of Defendant KK No. 1”. However, for the purpose of registration No. 1 of the registry No. 101 of the instant building due to the mistake by a registry official, the registration is recorded as the “establishment of the entire shares of Defendant KK No. 1 of the instant building”, which is the first 1/2 shares of Defendant KK prior to the partition of co-owned property, unlike the entry “No. 101 of the instant building” in the indication of the object of the mortgage contract as to the instant building No.

D. As to subparagraph 101 of the instant building, the registration of attachment was completed on May 31, 2013 by the Incheon District Court ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, the Defendant Republic of Korea, and the registration of attachment was completed on November 19, 2013 by the Incheon District Court ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, the Defendant original domicile.

E. Meanwhile, under the Asset-Backed Securitization Act on December 26, 2013, the Plaintiff acquired from a national bank a loan of KRW 82,720,006 from Defendant KK on June 9, 201, and a loan claim of KRW 2,187,00,000 on April 12, 2013 as well as the instant collateral security to secure this. Around that time, the Plaintiff was notified of the transfer of claims and registered for the transfer of assets under the said Act.

[Reasons for Recognition]

Defendant KK: The judgment by public notice (Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act) (Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act): Defendant Republic of Korea, the original state: the absence of dispute, each entry of Gap 1 through 9 (including the branch number), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

According to the above facts, the purpose of the registration of the establishment of a mortgage of this case is "the entire shares of defendant KK No. 101 in the building of this case and all shares of defendant KK No. 2 in the building of this case," and due to the mistake of the registry official, "the entire shares of defendant KK No. 1 in the Gu" was registered as "the whole shares of defendant KK No. 1 in the Gu," and in this case, the registration of correction to correct it should be applied jointly by the person entitled to registration and the person liable for registration as the person liable for registration as the person liable for registration as the person liable for registration as the transferee of the right of this case, and therefore, the plaintiff as the person liable for registration as the transferee of the right of this

In addition, if the above corrective registration is made, the defendant Republic of Korea and the Won-si are likely to cause damages that could not be recognized as a right to shares of 1/2 of the building 101 of this case, and thus, they are third parties interested in the registration. Therefore, they are obligated to express their intention of acceptance for the above corrective registration.

3. Determination as to the assertion of Defendant Republic of Korea or Won-si

A. Defendant Republic of Korea asserted, based on the presumption of the establishment registration of the instant building based on the presumption of the establishment registration, that Defendant Republic of Korea is presumed to be a mortgagee only with respect to Defendant KK 1/2 shares among Defendant 101 shares of the instant building. However, as seen earlier, insofar as part of the establishment registration of the instant neighboring building was found to be due to the mistake of the registry official, the presumption of establishment registration of the instant neighboring building was destroyed within the said scope. Thus, Defendant Republic of Korea’s aforementioned assertion is without merit

B. In addition, Defendant Republic of Korea asserts that if the above corrective registration is completed, it would be damaged by other interested parties, including Defendant Republic of Korea, who trusted the contents of the publication of the real estate register as to No. 101 of the instant building, during that period, and this would not be permitted. However, our Civil Code does not recognize the public trust of the registration that recognizes the acquisition of the right as registered as if the registration, which is the external appearance of the right, does not coincide with the substantive legal relationship. Accordingly, Defendant Republic of Korea’s assertion on a different premise is without merit.

C. Meanwhile, Defendant Won-si asserts that, on June 9, 201, the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant KK, which the Plaintiff acquired from the National Bank, was KRW 2,187,00,000 of loan claims as of April 12, 201, and KRW 2,187,00,00 of loan claims as of April 12, 2013. The secured claim of the instant right to collateral security, which was established on each of the instant buildings, is separate from each of the instant claims that the Plaintiff acquired as a loan claim as of August 27, 2002, is not an asset subject to securitization registered under the Asset-Backed Securitization Act, and the Plaintiff cannot respond to the instant claim on the premise that the Plaintiff acquired the secured claim of the instant right to collateral security.

On December 26, 2013, under the Asset-Backed Securitization Act, the Plaintiff acquired from a national bank a loan of KRW 82,720,006 on June 9, 201, and a loan of KRW 2,187,00,00 on April 12, 2013 from a national bank, from a national bank under the Asset-Backed Securitization Act, a loan of KRW 82,720,00,00 from a national bank, and a loan of KRW 2,187,00 on April 12, 2013. In full view of each of the above evidence and evidence as well as the purport of each of the statements as evidence No. 10,11, as a whole, Defendant KT continued to use each of the above mortgage loans between the national bank and the national bank on April 12, 2013. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion that each of the above mortgage loans will be included in the ground to recognize the acquisition of each of the above mortgage loans.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case against the defendants is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all.