1. The plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant C shall be dismissed.

2. The right to collateral security on April 20, 2016 between the Plaintiff and the Defendant B.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 20, 2016, the Plaintiff and the Defendants concluded a contract on the transfer and acquisition of collateral security (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the content that the Plaintiff acquired the collateral security (hereinafter “instant collateral security”) on the attached list established by the Defendants, along with the claim on the collateral security (hereinafter “instant contract”).

B. The acquisition price stipulated in the instant contract is KRW 50 million for the part of the right to collateral security of Defendant C, and KRW 100 million for the part of the right to collateral security of Defendant B, and the Plaintiff paid the said acquisition price to the Defendants from April 20, 2016 to April 22, 2016.

C. The Defendants: (a) on May 11, 2016, on the ground that the instant contract was rescinded, the Plaintiff as the principal deposit; and (b) Defendant C deposited the Plaintiff as the principal deposit; and (c) Defendant B deposited the amount of KRW 50 million.

On March 17, 2017, the Plaintiff received 100 million won deposited by Defendant B.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3 (including each number), 5, Eul evidence 2-1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. First of all, the Plaintiff’s assertion, Defendant C is obligated to implement the registration procedure for the transfer of the right to collateral security in the instant case to the Plaintiff pursuant to the instant contract.

Next, as the Plaintiff received KRW 100 million deposited by Defendant B, the Plaintiff and the Defendant B’s portion of the instant contract were revoked by agreement, it is sought to confirm that there is no obligation of the Plaintiff against Defendant B under the instant contract.

B. Defendant C, as to whether the lawsuit against Defendant C is lawful or not, the instant real estate was sold during the auction procedure and the instant mortgage became extinct, and thus, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit against Defendant C is unlawful as there is no benefit of protection of rights.

On the other hand, when real estate is sold in the auction procedure, the mortgage that existed in the sold real estate is naturally extinguished (Articles 91(2) and 268 of the Civil Execution Act). According to the records of this case, the Yangyang Co., Ltd. shall be extinguished.