1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasons for the finding of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning this case are as follows: "The pledge established as above is added to "the pledge of this case" (hereinafter "the pledge of this case") in the second part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and "B" in the third to fourth part of the judgment of the court of first instance.

The term "judgment" refers to the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, except to change the description as follows, and thus, it is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The main issue of the instant case is whether the Defendant’s rescission of the right of pledge constitutes a tort against the Plaintiff in light of the Plaintiff’s cause of claim.

2) The secured debt of the instant pledge is a debt under the indefinite condition that “a claim for expenses incurred in restoring to the original state which may be incurred in future.” However, as seen in the above basic facts, the secured debt of the instant pledge was completed for the restoration to the original state. The secured debt of the instant pledge was not effective due to the non-performance of the condition, and the instant pledge was also extinguished depending on the nature of the secured mortgage. Upon the termination of the pledge, the pledgee shall return the bond certificate, etc. to the pledger under the pledge agreement. Therefore, the Defendant’s response to the return of the passbook subject to the pledge is only the fulfillment of the obligation arising to himself due to the extinguishment of the pledge, and cannot by itself constitute a tort against the Plaintiff. 3) In order to perform his obligation under the pledge agreement against the Plaintiff, there is a legal basis that should be prohibited from relation to the two mountain development, which is the creditor of aggregate, and the relationship with the Plaintiff.

However, as seen in the above basic facts, so doing shall not be deposited in cash to the defendant for expenses incurred in restoring the foundation to its original state.

Each seizure and collection order of this case is related to the non-existent claim to refund the deposit.