The Republic of Korea is a third party interested in the registration and is obligated to express his/her consent to the cancellation of the registration of creation of the neighboring mortgage of this case.

The Republic of Korea is a third party interested in the registration and is obligated to express his/her consent to the cancellation of the registration of creation of the neighboring mortgage of this case.

Article 357 of the Civil Act / [Mortgage] Article 369 of the Civil Act / [Appendage]

2018 Ghana 240632 Cancellation of the right to collateral security

AA

1.B, 2. Korea

April 5, 2019

April 19, 2019

1. Defendant BB’s support to the Plaintiff with Suwon District Court as to the real estate stated in the separate sheet

Hanam Registry of Hanam on November 16, 2004 No. * The cancellation registration of the establishment registration of the establishment of the neighboring mortgage completed as*

Hadar.

2. Defendant Republic of Korea shall support the Plaintiff with Suwon District Court regarding the real estate stated in the separate sheet

The registration of cancellation of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage completed under No. 16 of November 16, 2004** The registration of cancellation of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage.

under section 24(3) of this title.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Defendants.

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 2, 198, the Plaintiff acquired one-half shares in relation to the area of land ** 1/2 shares in the [Attachment List] owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the “real estate in this case”) in the commercial Changdong-dong, Chungcheongnam-si, Hanam-si.

B. However, around May 2001 with respect to the share of CCC in the above land, DDR set a collateral security and superficies, and around August 2001, EEE created a collateral security, the Plaintiff, who is one of his share, had no liability to the Defendant BB with respect to the pertinent real estate. However, on November 16, 2004, the Plaintiff filed a registration for establishment of the collateral security (hereinafter “instant collateral security”) with respect to the instant real estate with respect to Defendant BB with respect to the Suwon District Court, Sungwon-nam Family Court, Sungnam Branch Branch Branch of the Suwon District Court ** by the maximum debt amount KRW 30 million, and the Plaintiff’s debtor’s collateral security (hereinafter “instant collateral security”).

C. On January 27, 2010, Defendant Republic of Korea seized the instant collateral security claim with value-added tax claim against Defendant BB, and completed the registration of seizure on January 29, 2010. On June 18, 2010, Defendant BB seized the instant collateral security claim with income tax claim against Defendant BB and completed the registration of seizure on June 23, 2010.

[Reasons for Recognition]

○ Defendant Lee Han-hee: Confession

○ Defendant Republic of Korea: Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 and 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

According to the above facts, the mortgage of this case is null and void because there is no legal act establishing the secured claim, and each seizure of the claim against Defendant Republic of Korea is null and void as a seizure of the claim without existence. Thus, Defendant BB is obligated to cancel the registration of the establishment of the mortgage of this case. Defendant Republic of Korea is a third party with interest in the registration, and Defendant Republic of Korea is obligated to express its consent on the cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the mortgage of this case.

In light of the relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant BB, the Plaintiff’s assertion that there is no legal act establishing a secured claim on the instant collateral security in light of the Plaintiff and the Defendant BB, or the Defendant BB’s confirmation document (Evidence A 4) that conforms thereto is in collusion and thus difficult to believe. On the other hand, the burden of proof as to the existence of a legal act establishing a secured claim on the instant collateral security is on the part of the assertion of its existence (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da107408, Apr. 28, 2011). The above doubtful circumstance pointed out by the Defendant Republic of Korea alone is insufficient to deem that there is sufficient proof of the Defendant Republic of Korea as to the existence of a legal act establishing a secured claim on the instant collateral security, and there is no other evidence, and the said assertion by the Defendant Republic of Korea is not acceptable.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is justified, and all of them are accepted, and it is so decided as per Disposition.