1. The Defendant shall receive, on March 26, 2013, from the Plaintiff, the Gocheon-gun District Court of Chuncheon with respect to the area of 535 square meters in Gangwon-gun, Gangwon-gun.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 5, 1992, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the area of 535 square meters (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

B. On March 26, 2013, the Plaintiff completed the registration of creation of the right to collateral security (hereinafter “instant right to collateral security”) with respect to the instant real estate, etc. to the Defendant, which was based on the contract concluded as of March 25, 2013, including the maximum debt amount of KRW 300 million, the obligor, and the mortgagee as the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 2-1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. 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 (Article 357(1) of the Civil Act). Since multiple unspecified claims arising from continuous business relations are established for the purpose of securing a certain limit in the future settlement period, there is a legal act establishing the 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 the secured claim of the right to collateral at the time of establishment of the right to collateral security exists.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da107408, Apr. 28, 2011). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no evidence to prove that there was a juristic act establishing the secured claim of the instant right to collateral security, and there is no evidence to prove that there was a juristic act establishing the secured claim of the instant right to collateral security. Thus, the instant court did not appear on the date of the second pleading without submitting any evidence even though the Defendant clearly identified the secured claim of the instant right to collateral security and ordered the Defendant to produce relevant

Even if the Defendant asserted D’s investment deposit return claim or loan claim as the secured claim of the instant right to collateral security, the obligor of the instant right to collateral security is not D, as seen earlier.