1. The Defendant: (a) on January 22, 2013, the Suwon District Court Yangyang-gu Branch of the Suwon District Court with respect to the land size of 827 square meters in Gyeonggi-gun C Forest land.

1. Basic facts

A. On January 22, 2013, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to shares of 827/1683, out of 827 square meters of Gyeonggi-gun C forest land (hereinafter “instant land”). On December 16, 2013, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant land on the ground of partition of co-owned property.

B. On January 22, 2013, the Defendant completed the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage (No. 2854, hereinafter the “instant collateral security”) designated by the Plaintiff as the Plaintiff, with respect to the instant land, KRW 70,000,000,000,000,000,000.

[Grounds for recognition] The entry of evidence No. 2-3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that the registration of the establishment of a new mortgage of this case should be cancelled because the registration of the establishment of a new mortgage of this case was completed falsely without the secured debt.

A mortgage is a mortgage created by setting only the maximum amount of the debt to be secured and reserving the determination of the debt in the future. Since it is established with the purpose of securing a certain limit from a settlement term for the future, there must be a legal act establishing a secured claim of the right of the right of the right of the right of the right of the right of the right of the right of the right of the right of the right of the right of the right of the right of the right of the right of the right of the right of the right

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da72070 Decided December 24, 2009, etc.). In the instant case where the Plaintiff asserted that there was no legal act establishing the secured debt of the instant right to collateral security, the Plaintiff has the burden of proving the existence of the secured debt to the Defendant. Thus, it is reasonable to deem that the instant right to collateral security is null and void, since the Defendant did not prove any legal act.

3. If so, the defendant shall execute the procedure for registration of cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the establishment of the neighboring land of this case to the plaintiff.