1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 19, 2012, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 400 million from C, the interest rate of KRW 5.5% per annum (three-month fluctuation rate), and the due date for repayment as of May 30, 2013, respectively.

B. On November 26, 2012, with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”) on November 26, 2012, the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage over the Plaintiff and the debtor as the Defendant (hereinafter “registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage over each of the instant real estate”) was completed.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Eul evidence No. 5-1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff merely bears the loan obligation of KRW 400 million against C, and even if the Plaintiff did not bear any obligation against the Defendant, the registration of establishment of each of the instant places of establishment was completed for the Defendant, and thus, each of the instant places of establishment registration is null and void by a false declaration of agreement.

In addition, the registration of establishment of a mortgage of each of the instant cases, which was completed by the Defendant, who is not a loan creditor C, as a mortgagee, is null and void pursuant to Article 4, Article 4, Article 1, 2 of the Act on the Registration

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of the registration of the establishment of each of the instant establishments.

(1) In the first instance trial, if the Plaintiff offsets the Plaintiff’s loan worth KRW 1 billion against the Plaintiff’s automatic claim, the secured obligation of each of the instant mortgages is extinguished. Therefore, the Defendant alleged that the establishment registration of each of the instant mortgages should be cancelled, but the above assertion was withdrawn at the trial.

Judgment

In the event that a mortgage is created by providing real estate owned by an obligor as collateral for the purpose of securing a claim, in principle, in light of the principle of the appendantness of a security right, the claim and mortgage can not be different from the subject, but the creditor, the obligor, and the third party.