1. The lawsuit of this case concerning the confirmation of the existence of an obligation shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's request for cancellation of the establishment registration of neighboring mortgage.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff’s mother C borrowed KRW 130 million (= KRW 100 million) from the Defendant on March 24, 2011 and KRW 130 million on April 11, 201 (i.e., KRW 30 million).

B. On May 16, 201, the Plaintiff concluded a mortgage agreement with the Defendant as to real estate indicated in the separate sheet, his/her own possession, in order to secure the above loan obligation against the Defendant, and completed the registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage with respect to the said real estate as the obligor, the Defendant, and the maximum debt amount of KRW 130 million as of May 16, 201, pursuant to the aforementioned mortgage agreement, pursuant to the Incheon District Court Decision No. 5168, May 16, 201.

(hereinafter the Defendant’s above right to collateral security under the name of the Defendant is “the instant right to collateral security”), / [based on recognition] without dispute, entry of the evidence No. 1, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. As seen in the following 3., the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for the cancellation of the instant right to collateral security by asserting the extinguishment of the secured obligation, and at the same time sought confirmation of the non-existence of the secured obligation of the instant right to collateral security.

However, the lawsuit of confirmation is permitted when the plaintiff's right or legal status is infeasible and dangerous, and the judgment of confirmation is the most effective and appropriate means to resolve the dispute. In addition, in the case of seeking the cancellation of the registration of establishment of a mortgage, it would be a direct means to resolve the dispute on the ground that the person who created a mortgage does not have a secured obligation based on the contract of establishment of a mortgage. Thus, it cannot be said that there is a benefit of confirmation to seek the confirmation that there is no secured obligation based on the contract of establishment of a mortgage separately because the person who created a mortgage seeks to confirm that there is no secured obligation.

Supreme Court Decision 200 delivered on April 11, 200