1. On June 22, 2017, the Defendant shall assist the Plaintiff with Suwon District Court in relation to the real estate stated in the attached list.

1. In the event that a registration of establishment of a mortgage was completed, the registration is presumed to have been lawful and to have publicly announced the state of true right, and thus, the party asserting that the registration was unlawful is responsible to prove the opposing fact that it may reverse the presumption power (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da72763, Apr. 10, 201). However, the presumption power at the registration of establishment of a mortgage is presumed to have been duly made by the registrant of the registered property or by lawfully acquiring the right to collateral or by satisfying the effective requirements in the procedure of the contract establishing a mortgage, which is the ground for registration, and it is not presumed that the establishment or existence of the secured claim secured by the right to collateral is also presumed to have been duly made.

In other words, the right to collateral security is a mortgage established by settling only the maximum amount of the debt to be secured and reserving the determination of the debt in the future (Article 357(1) of the Civil Act), and since it is established with the aim of securing a certain limit in the future settlement period, it is necessary to establish a legal act establishing a secured claim of the right to collateral security separately from the act of establishing the right to collateral security (see Supreme Court Decisions 2003Da70041, May 28, 2004; 2009Da72070, Dec. 24, 2009). The burden of proof as to whether there was a legal act establishing the secured claim of the right to collateral security at the time the right to collateral security was established is on the part of the assertion of its existence.

(See Supreme Court Decisions 2009Da72070 Decided April 28, 201, 201, Supreme Court Decision 2010Da107408 Decided April 28, 201). The fact that the establishment registration of neighboring mortgage (hereinafter “instant collateral security”) was completed on June 22, 2017 with respect to the real estate listed in the separate list owned by the Plaintiff was completed on the Health Unit and on June 22, 2017 by Sungnam District Court’s receipt of Sungnam Branch Branch Office of Support (hereinafter “instant collateral security”) was not disputed between the parties, but the Plaintiff secured the instant collateral.