1. The Defendant shall accept, on February 11, 201, the registration office of the Gwangju District Court with respect to the land size of 2,083 square meters in Gwangju Mine-gu.

1. According to the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as a whole and the pleadings, it is recognized that on February 11, 2011, the plaintiff entered into a mortgage agreement with the defendant as to B forest Nos. 2,083 square meters in Gwangju Mine-gu, which is owned by the plaintiff, with the defendant, and accordingly, on the same day, the defendant completed the registration of establishment of mortgage (hereinafter “instant real estate”) on the said real estate (hereinafter “instant real estate”) with the head of Gwangju District Court No. 21109, Feb. 11, 2011.

A creditor and a mortgagee: A person who has created the right to collateral security against new metal: A person who has created the right to collateral security against the plaintiff: 200 million won shall set up the right to collateral security against the creditor, within the limit of the above amount, in order to secure all the obligations, such as a loan, a letter, and a payment certificate, signed and sealed by the debtor as a sole or a guarantor, or a guarantor, and all the obligations arising out of, or all the obligations arising out of, a check or commercial transaction, as a guarantor.

(hereinafter omitted)

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the right to collateral security was secured by the instant right to collateral security (hereinafter “new metal”) against the Defendant was fully repaid, and even if not, the extinctive prescription has expired, the instant right to collateral security should be cancelled following the extinguishment of the secured obligation.

B. The determination of new metal has been supplied by the Defendant with goods, such as metal materials, etc. for a number of years, and paid the price to the Defendant. Since March 12, 2013, the fact that no transaction had been made between the Defendant and the new metal does not conflict between the parties.

However, the defendant asserts that the remaining price of new metal is KRW 66,010,639, and the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is the remaining price of goods against the defendant.