1. As to the portion of 8,215 square meters out of 8,215 square meters of forest E-Gun in the newannam-gun, the Defendant C is entitled to share 6,562.

1. Basic facts

A. On January 8, 2009, Plaintiff A borrowed KRW 100,000,00 from G from January 8, 2009 as the due date of repayment of April 7, 2009 and the 3% of interest month, respectively, and H guaranteed Plaintiff A’s obligation of the said borrowed amount.

B. As to the portion of 8,215 square meters of forest E E, 8,215 square meters of forest E (hereinafter “E forest”), the registration of creation of the right to collateral security as stated in Paragraph (1) of the Disposition, which is indicated respectively as the ground for registration as “contract on January 8, 2009,” the maximum debt amount of KRW 150,000,000, and the debtor A and the defendant C, respectively, was completed on January 6, 2009. In addition, with respect to F forest E owned by the plaintiff B, the establishment of the right to collateral security was completed on November 6, 2009, indicated as the ground for registration as “contract on November 5, 2009, the maximum debt amount of KRW 30,000,000,000, the debtor, the plaintiff B, and the defendant D, respectively, (hereinafter “registration of collateral security”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without a partial dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. With respect to Plaintiff A’s claim, a mortgage created by setting 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). Since a security right is established to secure a certain limit from a continuous transactional relationship in the future, there must be a legal act establishing a secured claim of the right to collateral separate from the act of establishing the right to collateral. The burden of proof as to whether there was a legal act establishing the secured claim of the right to collateral at the time the right to collateral was established is on the part of claiming its existence.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da72070 Decided December 24, 2009, etc.). Defendant C asserts that the establishment registration of the establishment of the first place of the instant case was completed in order to lend money to Plaintiff A and secure the loan to the Plaintiff, thereby following the foregoing legal doctrine.