1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the part concerning the claim for cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the neighboring mortgage against the defendant was added by this court.

1. The Plaintiff, at the first instance court’s primary claim, sought confirmation that, with respect to the refusal of compulsory execution based on a promissory note No. 422, No. 422 prepared by a notary public E on June 7, 2016 (hereinafter “instant notarial deed”), and the real estate stated in attached Table 1. No. 1. 1, the Suwon District Court’s Ansan-si Office of Home Branch of Korea, which was completed as No. 62087, Sept. 26, 2016, the cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage, which was completed as of September 26, 2016, and the preliminary claim, the refusal of compulsory execution based on the instant notarial deed and the secured debt of the establishment of a neighboring notarial notarial notarial notarial notarial

The first instance court accepted the plaintiff's main claim for non-performance of compulsory execution, dismissed the claim for cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage, and rendered a judgment dismissing the remainder of the conjunctive claim among the conjunctive claims.

The defendant did not appeal but appealed against the part against the plaintiff only.

Since the Plaintiff withdrawn the conjunctive claim in this court and changed the claim to add each real estate listed in [Attachment 1] 2 and 3 to the claim to cancel the registration of the establishment of a new mortgage, the subject of this court’s adjudication is limited to the claim to cancel the registration of the establishment of a new mortgage including the claims added

2. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a person who engages in the business of collecting and removing recyclable resources under the trade name of “L”.

B. On June 7, 2016, the Plaintiff (the Plaintiff’s husband’s husband’s husband’s act was also indicated as the Plaintiff’s act on behalf of the Plaintiff) must lend KRW 200 million to the Plaintiff’s joint and several sureties Co-Defendant C and D (hereinafter “Co-Defendant of the first instance trial”) in order to carry out the removal work ordered by the Company G (D is the actual operator; hereinafter “G”) from the Co-Defendant C and D (hereinafter “Co-Defendant of the first instance trial”).