1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On April 3, 2015, the Daejeon District Court filed an application against B for a payment order claiming the payment of the acquisition amount with the Daejeon District Court 2015 tea5884, and the Daejeon District Court ordered B to pay the payment amounting to KRW 80 million and KRW 40,337,032, whichever is later.

Payment orders were finalized on April 25, 2015.

B. Meanwhile, the Defendant filed an all-round indictment of the Jeonju District Court on April 17, 200 on the charge of the registration of the establishment of a mortgage on the maximum debt amount of KRW 40 million with respect to C forest land 5,851 square meters, which is owned by B, the Defendant completed the registration of the establishment of a mortgage on April 17

(2) On April 12, 2017, the Defendant transferred the said collateral to D on April 12, 2017, and completed the additional registration of the transfer of the collateral to the Jeonju District Court No. 17343, Apr. 12, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. The Defendant’s assertion is seeking registration of cancellation of the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage on the ground that the cause of the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage is invalid in subrogation of the debtor B, or that the prescription of the secured claim expires

However, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful since the defendant is not qualified as the defendant of the lawsuit of this case seeking registration of cancellation of the registration of establishment of a mortgage any longer by transferring the right to collateral security.

B. In the event that the right to collateral security was transferred but the secured debt is extinguished or the establishment registration of the collateral security is null and void of the original cause, seeking the cancellation of the establishment registration of the collateral security against the transferee, and the transferor is not qualified as the defendant in the claim for cancellation registration.

(See Supreme Court Decision 200Da5640 Decided April 11, 200, etc.). As seen earlier, the Defendant transferred the right to collateral security to D on April 12, 2017 and the supplementary registration for the transfer of the right to collateral security in the name of D was completed. As such, the Defendant is no longer eligible for the Defendant of the instant lawsuit seeking the cancellation of the registration of the establishment of collateral security.

The lawsuit of this case is qualified as the defendant.