The defendant who asserts the existence of a legal act that establishes the secured claim for the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage is responsible to prove such existence.

In the case of the right to collateral security, separate from the act of establishing the right to collateral security, there must be a legal act establishing the right to collateral security, and the burden of proof as to whether there was a legal act establishing the right to collateral security at the time of establishment of the right to collateral security exists. However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that Defendant YB had a claim against the Plaintiff.

Article 357 of the Civil Code provides a collateral security

2015da36812 Cancellation of the registration of creation of a mortgage

United StatesA

1. tinB

2. Korea;

April 8, 2016

May 13, 2016

1. Defendant AB shall be the Plaintiff:

(a) the registration of establishment of a neighboring establishment of a real estate completed on March 12, 2014 by the OO District Court No. 11581 regarding the real estate listed in the Schedule No. 1 annexed hereto;

B. The registration of the establishment of a neighboring real estate that was completed on March 10, 2014 as No. 10060 on March 10, 2014 with respect to each real estate listed in the attached Tables 2 and 3

Each cancellation registration procedure shall be implemented.

2. The defendant Republic of Korea expressed his/her intention to accept the cancellation of the registration of creation of the neighboring mortgage mentioned in paragraph (1) above.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Defendants.

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of recognition;

In full view of the respective descriptions and arguments in Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 400-1,000 O-si O-si O-si 400-1,000 square meters owned by the plaintiff, the maximum debt amount is KRW 400,000,000,000,000 O District Court No. 11581, which was received on March 12, 2014; ② OOOO-gun 197-1,818 square meters owned by the plaintiff; ② The registration office of 206,000 square meters of 46,000 square meters prior to 1197-2,000,0000 O-si 40,000,000 won, and the registration office of 206,0000,000 won was received as 96,000,0000 won, and the registration of 16,000

2. Determination

A. Determination as to the claim against Defendant AB

Confession (Article 208 (3) 2 and Article 150 (3) of the Civil Procedure Act)

B. Determination on the claim against Defendant Republic of Korea

(1) The right to collateral security is a mortgage established by settling only 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), and is established with a view to securing a certain limit in the future settlement term. Thus, separate from the act of establishing the right to collateral security, there is a legal act establishing the right to collateral security, and the burden of proof as to whether there was a legal act establishing the right to collateral security at the time of establishment of the right to collateral security has been asserted. Meanwhile, where a claim bearing the right to collateral security is seized, the purpose of registering the seizure of the right to collateral by means of additional registration at the time of establishment of the right to collateral security is to publicly announce the seizure of the right to collateral, which is subordinate to the right to collateral security, because the seizure of the right to collateral security becomes effective if there is no right to collateral security, and in the event of cancelling the right to collateral security, the seizure right shall be null and void.

(2) In the instant case where the Plaintiff did not perform a legal act that establishes the secured claim of each of the instant mortgages, the responsibility to prove the existence of the secured claim in the instant case lies in the Republic of Korea claiming its existence. However, when returning to the instant case, it is difficult to find the evidence submitted by the Defendant Republic of Korea that Defendant DaiB had a claim against the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise. As seen earlier, Defendant DaiB is liable to cancel the registration of creation of each of the instant neighboring mortgages to the Plaintiff, and the Defendant Republic of Korea, the title holder of each of the instant registrations based on each of the instant mortgages adjacent to the instant mortgages, for which no secured claim exists, has the obligation to express his/her consent to the cancellation of each of the instant mortgages adjacent to the instant

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is with merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.