1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On July 21, 2015, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a lease agreement (hereinafter referred to as “instant lease agreement”) with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant real estate”) with respect to the lessor, Defendant, the lessee, the lease deposit amount of KRW 150 million, monthly rent of KRW 2,300,000 (excluding value-added tax), and the lease term of KRW 2,300,000 (excluding value-added tax), from July 31, 2015 to July 31, 2017. The special agreement on the instant lease agreement states that “a lessee grants a lessee a right to collateral security or a right to lease on a deposit at his/her request.” The details of the instant lease agreement are as listed in the separate sheet No. 2.

B. As to each of the instant real estate, the Incheon District Court’s reinforcement registry office of the Incheon District Court (2504 on August 12, 2015) completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage, which was concluded on July 31, 2015 by the debtor, the Defendant, the mortgagee, the maximum debt amount of KRW 150,00,000, and the grounds for registration as the contract signed on July 31,

(hereinafter) The registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage of the instant case is deemed to be “the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage of the instant case”).

The Defendant paid 150,000,000 won to the Plaintiff as stipulated in the instant lease agreement.

【Ground for Recognition: Unsatisfy, Entry of Evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 2 of Evidence No. 1-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings】

2. Summary of the parties’ assertion

A. The content of the Plaintiff’s assertion is as shown in the attached Table 3, and the purport of the assertion is that the lease contract of this case is terminated due to the Defendant’s rent delay, etc., so it seems that the establishment registration of mortgage of this case should be cancelled.

B. The Defendant’s summary of the instant claim is the right to collateral security established to secure the obligation to return the lease deposit under the instant lease agreement, and the Defendant should not be cancelled as it has not yet been refunded the lease deposit from the Plaintiff.

3. Determination

A. As examined in the above 1.1, this case.