1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On June 27, 2012, the Seoul Northern District Court Decision 1479559, which received on June 27, 2012, filed a registration for the establishment of chonsegwon with respect to part of one floor among the buildings owned by the Plaintiff in Seongbuk-gu Seoul Ean-gu, Seoul Ean District Court (Seoul Northern District Court Decision 147.8 square meters).

B. As stated in the purport of the claim regarding each of the real estate stated in the Plaintiff’s ownership (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”), the registration of establishment of each of the instant collateral security claims (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate registration”) was completed on June 27, 2012 by the Jung-gu Seoul Central District Court’s registry office, which was received on June 27, 2012, with the obligor, the mortgagee, the Defendant, and the maximum debt amount of KRW 75 million.

[Based on Recognition] Each entry in Gap evidence 1 and 2 (including paper numbers)

2. On June 27, 2012, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff: (a) borrowed KRW 50 million from F through G on June 27, 2012; and (b) borrowed KRW 50 million from F to secure F’s obligation.

Since the defendant merely borrowed money from the defendant, as stated in the paragraph, only registered the establishment of a right to lease on a deposit basis in F, each of the registrations of this case made on each of the real estate in this case does not exist the secured claims.

Therefore, each of the instant registrations must be cancelled as a cause invalidation.

3. Determination

A. The relevant legal doctrine is a mortgage established by setting the maximum amount of a debt to be secured and reserving the determination of an obligation in the future, and is established with a view to securing a certain amount of unspecified claims arising from a continuous transactional relationship within a certain period for the settlement of accounts in the future. As such, 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. The burden of proof as to whether there was a legal act establishing a secured claim of the right to collateral at the

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da72070 Decided December 24, 2009, etc.). B.

The defendant is G through the plaintiff.