1. As to each real estate listed in the attached list to the Plaintiff, the Defendant shall have the Suwon District Court's Sung-nam Branch Office.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 24, 2004, the Plaintiff borrowed 300 million won from D through the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “ Intervenor”).

On May 24, 2004, the Plaintiff completed on its security the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage on each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “the instant real estate”) owned by the Plaintiff, including the maximum debt amount of 360 million won, and the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage indicated in the order that the Plaintiff is the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage”).

B. The instant right to collateral security was transferred to the intervenors on January 25, 2005, and each supplementary registration was completed on August 31, 2009, respectively.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 2, 8 evidence, each entry of Eul 10 to 12, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the assertion of cancellation of collateral security under the agreement

A. On August 28, 2004, the plaintiff asserts that the intervenor agreed to terminate the right to collateral security of this case to the plaintiff on or around August 28, 2004, and that the defendant acquired the right to collateral security of this case from the intervenor and acquired the contract. Thus, the defendant is obligated to cancel the right to collateral security of this case to the plaintiff

In regard to this, the Defendant, instead of having received a provisional registration from the Plaintiff for the land E and four parcels of land and its ground buildings in Seosan City, Seosan-si, agreed to cancel the instant right to collateral security, and the Plaintiff did not transfer the said provisional registration to the Intervenor, as well as the Intervenor, the Defendant, who received the instant right to collateral security, did not have any obligation to cancel the instant right to collateral security.

B. We examine the judgment, even though the Plaintiff agreed to cancel the instant right to collateral security with the Intervenor, it cannot be asserted against the Defendant who was transferred the said right from the Intervenor.

Moreover, the Defendant’s obligation under the foregoing agreement is solely based on the fact that the instant right to collateral security was transferred.