1. The plaintiff

A. As to the real estate listed in the separate sheet, Defendant B’s remaining Government District Court, Yangyang-ju Registry, 2016.

1. Basic facts - With respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “instant real estate”), the Plaintiff completed the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage to the Defendant B, and the Defendant as the Plaintiff, under the receipt of No. 15851 on February 22, 2016, by the Jung-gu District Court, Namyang-ju registry, the maximum debt amount of which was KRW 100 million

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant collateral security”). - On June 1, 2016, Defendant Yang Pyeong-gun seized Defendant B’s secured claim of the instant collateral security against the Plaintiff on grounds of delinquency in local tax, and completed the registration of attachment of the instant collateral security claim under the receipt of No. 5204 on June 3, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1-2 evidence, Eul 1-2 evidence, each entry

2. The plaintiff alleged that the mortgage of this case was invalid as the right to collateral security without any secured claim, and claimed against the defendant B for the execution of the procedure for the cancellation of the registration of the establishment of mortgage of this case. The defendant B led to the confession of the plaintiff's assertion.

Therefore, Defendant B is obligated to implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the instant mortgage to the Plaintiff.

3. Determination as to the claim against the defendant Yang Pyeong-gun

A. The right to collateral security 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 transaction relations are established for the purpose of securing a certain limit in the future settlement period, there is a legal act establishing the right to collateral security, separate from the act of establishing the right to collateral security, and the burden of proof as to whether there was a legal act establishing the right to collateral security at the time of establishing the right to collateral security has been asserted its existence.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da72070, Dec. 24, 2009). Meanwhile, there is a right to collateral security.