Cancellation of Mortgage

The written evidence Nos. 2 and 4 submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff’s obligation to the Defendant Company secured by each of the instant collective security rights has been extinguished due to repayment, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

Article 208(3)2 of the Civil Procedure Act

2014 Ghana 7153

○ ○

Korea

January 21, 2015

February 4, 2015

1. Defendant ○○ Integrated Food Co., Ltd. shall implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the establishment of each neighboring establishment as of June 13, 2005, which was completed as No. 24310 by the Gwangju District Court Gwangju District Court, Gwangju District Court Decision 2005.

2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant Republic of Korea is dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the portion arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, Defendant ○○ Integrated Food Co., Ltd. among the costs of lawsuit is borne by Defendant ○○ Integrated Food Co., Ltd., and the portion

Cheong-gu Office

The purport of the claim against ○○ Integrated Food Co., Ltd.: as stated in paragraph (1) of this Article.

Claim against Korea: The Republic of Korea shall provide the Plaintiff with the collateral security set forth in Paragraph (1) above.

In relation to the procedure for cancellation registration of right creation, the declaration of consent will be made.

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is the owner who completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet on June 30, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as "each real estate of this case").

B. Defendant ○○ Integrated Food Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd”) completed the registration of establishment of each of the instant real estate owned by the Plaintiff, with respect to the registration of establishment of mortgage over the maximum debt amount of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○ on June 13, 2005 received on June 13, 2005.

C. Defendant Republic of Korea completed the supplementary registration of the seizure of the right to collateral security against Defendant Company’s respective right to collateral security, as the same court received on March 20, 2009, No. 11632.

Facts that there is no partial dispute over the basis of recognition, entry of Gap evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. Determination as to the claim against the defendant company

(i)the basis for the claim;

In order to secure the Plaintiff’s obligation under a continuous contract for the supply of goods, the Plaintiff created each of the instant collateral on each of the instant real property with respect to the Defendant Company. One year thereafter, the continuous transaction relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Company was terminated, and around that time, the Plaintiff’s obligation to the Defendant Company secured by each of the instant collateral security interests was extinguished by repayment. Therefore, the Defendant Company is liable to implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of each of the instant collateral

2) Applicable provisions;

Article 208 (3) 2 of the Civil Procedure Act (Judgment of deemed confession by Non-Appearance of the Defendant)

B. Determination on the claim against Defendant Republic of Korea

1) Summary of the assertion

The plaintiff asserts to the effect that since the defendant Republic of Korea seized each of the instant collateral security claims after the continuous transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant company is terminated and the debt repayment is extinguished, the seizure of the claim is null and void, and the defendant Republic of Korea has a duty to express his/her consent to the registration of cancellation of each of the instant collateral security claims to the plaintiff.

2) Determination

In light of the evidence evidence Nos. 2 and 4 submitted by the Plaintiff, it is insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff’s obligation to the Defendant Company, which is secured by each of the instant collective security rights, was extinguished due to repayment, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise (it is not unlawful even in the case where the judgment of inconsistency between the Defendant and the Defendant by proving that the Defendant, which is the sole owner of the instant collective security rights, was issued with respect to the same substantive relationship (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Da53789, Feb. 28, 1997). Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion in Korea

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant company is accepted on the ground of the reasons, and the defendant's claim in the Republic of Korea is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition