1. The defendant on June 13, 2005 registered office of the Changwon District Court with respect to the plaintiff's 1,915 square meters of the answer 1,915 square meters in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do.

1. The Defendant completed the registration of the establishment of a collateral security (hereinafter “registration of the establishment of a collateral security”) with respect to the land of 1,915 square meters (hereinafter “the instant real property”) owned by the Plaintiff on June 4, 2005, the Changwon District Court Branch of Changwon District on the ground of the contract on June 13, 2005, No. 13875, which was received on June 13, 2005.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Assertion and determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant provided KRW 35 million to D, who is the Plaintiff’s husband, for the purpose of attracting patients, set up the instant registration of collateral security in order to create the appearance of loans. As such, the secured debt of the above registration of collateral security did not exist from the beginning, the Defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of the registration of the establishment

B. The judgment of the court below is a mortgage established by setting only the maximum amount of the debt to be secured and reserving the determination of the debt in the future. Since it is a security established for securing a certain limit in a settlement term for the future a number of unspecified claims arising from a continuous transaction, there must be a legal act establishing a secured claim of the right to collateral separate from the act of establishing the right to collateral, and the burden of proving whether there was a legal act establishing a secured claim of the right to collateral at the time of establishing the right to collateral exists

(2) In light of the above legal principles, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the establishment of the right to collateral security (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da107408, Apr. 28, 2011). Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the right to collateral security (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Da107408, Apr. 28, 201).