1. On February 6, 2017, the Defendant: (a) on each of the real estate listed in the attached list to the Plaintiff, Busan District Court’s registration office.

1. The fact that the right to collateral security recorded in the separate list, owned by the Plaintiff, is established based on the joint collateral on February 3, 2017, the maximum debt amount of which is KRW 24,00,000, and the fact that the right to collateral security recorded in the order of the Plaintiff, the mortgagee, and the Defendant of the right to collateral security was established, is not disputed between the parties or acknowledged by the record of evidence

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The above mortgage contract is null and void as a false declaration of agreement. 2) The Plaintiff did not borrow money from the Defendant, and the above mortgage is null and void as there is no legal act establishing the secured claim.

B. On February 3, 2017, the Defendant asserted that the Defendant was granted a right to collateral security by lending money to the Plaintiff.

3. Determination

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), and is established with the aim of securing a certain limit at a settlement term in the future. Thus, separate from the act of establishing the right to collateral security, there is a legal act 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 at the time of establishing the right to collateral security exists.

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

In addition to the above basic facts, considering the following facts and circumstances revealed by comprehensively taking into account the descriptions of Eul 1 through 5, the results of the order to submit financial transaction information to C Bank, and the overall purport of pleadings, the secured debt of the above secured mortgage does not exist. Thus, the defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for cancellation of the registration of cancellation of the above secured mortgage establishment registration to the plaintiff.

1. It is recognized that the Defendant lent money to the Plaintiff on February 3, 2017.