1. The part concerning the claim for the confirmation of existence of an obligation among the lawsuits in this case shall be dismissed.

2. The defendant shall enter the attached list in the plaintiff.

1. The Plaintiff, along with the cancellation of the right to collateral security stated in the Disposition No. 2, sought confirmation of the non-existence of the secured obligation as well as the cancellation of the right to collateral security.

A lawsuit for confirmation is permitted when the plaintiff's right or legal status is in unstable danger and receiving a judgment of confirmation is the most effective and appropriate means to resolve the dispute. As in this case, in order to seek confirmation that the plaintiff did not have a secured obligation based on the contract for the establishment of a mortgage and to seek cancellation of the establishment of a mortgage, it would be a direct means to effectively resolve the dispute on the ground that there is no secured obligation. Thus, it cannot be said that there is a benefit of confirmation to seek confirmation that there is no secured obligation based on the contract for the establishment of a mortgage separately.

(1) The part of the instant lawsuit pertaining to the claim for the confirmation of existence of an obligation is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation, as it does not exist any benefit of confirmation.

2. Determination on the request for implementation of procedures for cancellation of registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage

(a)as shown in the reasons for the attachment of the claim;

(b) Article 208 (3) 2 of the Civil Procedure Act of the applicable provisions of Acts;

3. In conclusion, the part of the claim for the confirmation of existence of the obligation among the instant lawsuit is unlawful, and thus, the claim for the cancellation of the registration procedure for the establishment of a neighboring mortgage is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.