1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Since the Plaintiff acquired ownership on December 29, 1997 with respect to the building listed in the attached list (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”), the Plaintiff owned the apartment of this case until now.

B. As to the apartment of this case, the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage on September 20, 2006, including the maximum debt amount of 35 million won, the debtor corporation, Bobaz, and the defendant's claim as to the apartment of this case (hereinafter the above neighboring mortgage registration was completed by the "registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage of this case" and the "mortgage-mortgage" acquired by the defendant following the registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage of this case.

C. On November 20, 2014, the Defendant’s successor acquired the secured debt of the instant right to collateral security from the Defendant, and subsequently completed the additional registration prior to the instant right to collateral security on April 6, 2015 (Seoul District Court Decision 40319, April 6, 2015), and acquired the instant right to collateral security.

【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap’s evidence No. 2, and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Plaintiff’s assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserts that the establishment registration of a mortgage in the instant case was completed although the Plaintiff did not conclude a mortgage contract with the Defendant, and sought cancellation of the establishment registration of a mortgage in the instant case.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 4 and 5, the date on which the defendant extended money to Sonaz Co., Ltd. on June 7, 2006, and the maturity date of the loan was September 7, 2006, but the date of the completion of the registration of the establishment of the neighboring mortgage of this case on September 20, 2006 can be seen as the following date.

However, such facts alone are insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff did not conclude a mortgage contract with the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff’s statement Nos. 4 and 5 (including branch numbers, if any) on September 20, 2006 and the apartment of this case.