1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. 1) As to the real estate listed in Paragraph 4 of the attached list No. 1, 2, and 3 of the attached list No. 1, 3 of the Plaintiff’s real estate owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “Korea Light Bank”) and the attached list No. 4 of the attached list No. 1, 2, and 6 of the Plaintiff’s living together with the Plaintiff, the Defendant (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) established the right to collateral security (hereinafter “the attached list No. 1”) as to the real estate indicated in the attached list No. 1, 2, and 3 of the attached list No. 1, 390,000,000 won on July 1, 199 as of the Daejeon District Court Decision No. 444892, Jun

(2) The right to collateral security (hereinafter “the right to collateral security of this case”) is a maximum debt amount of KRW 390,000,000,000 for establishing a contract as of November 3, 1999 with the same court No. 74070, Nov. 4, 1999; and the right to collateral security (hereinafter “the right to collateral security of this case”).

(2) On January 20, 2004, the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the real estate listed in paragraph (4) of the attached table of real estate from F.

(hereinafter referred to as “each real estate of this case” in the separate sheet of real estate

1) On July 20, 2004, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking the cancellation of the instant 1 and 2 collateral security agreement against the Defendant on July 20, 2004, with the Seoul Central District Court, by asserting that the instant 1 and 2 collateral security agreement was not based on the Plaintiff’s intent, or that the Plaintiff had expressed his intent to cancel the instant 2 collateral security agreement, and that the secured obligation was extinguished due to full repayment, and that the secured obligation did not exist from the beginning, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking the cancellation of the instant 1 and 2 collateral security agreement. On May 11, 2005, there is insufficient evidence to prove that the instant 1 collateral security agreement was invalid or that the secured obligation was not established on the basis of the Plaintiff’s intent, but the instant 2 collateral security agreement was partially favorable (Seoul Central District Court).