1. Defendant B received on March 22, 2017 from the Ulsan District Court on the real estate stated in the attached list to the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 22, 2017, the Plaintiff completed the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage on the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) on March 22, 2017, on the ground that the relevant contract was concluded as of March 22, 2017.

B. Meanwhile, the registration of the seizure of the above right to collateral security by the Defendant Republic of Korea was completed on August 8, 2017, which was received on August 11, 2017 by the lower court due to the seizure of the Defendant Republic of Korea on August 8, 2017, when Defendant B failed to pay national taxes.

[Reasons for Recognition] Defendant Republic of Korea: without dispute, entry of Party A’s evidence No. 1, and Defendant B’s purport before oral argument

2. The plaintiff asserted that there was no legal act to establish the secured debt at the time of the registration of the establishment of the mortgage of this case, and the above defendant led to confession. Thus, the above defendant must implement the registration of cancellation of the right to collateral of this case to the plaintiff.

3. Claim against Defendant Republic of Korea

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.

(Supreme Court Decision 2009Da72070 Decided December 24, 2009). In light of the above legal principles, in this case, the Plaintiff asserted that there was no legal act establishing the secured claim at the time of the registration of the establishment of the instant collateral, the Defendant, who claimed the existence of the secured claim, has the burden of proving the existence of the secured claim, but did not assert or prove it.