1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. According to the record on the evidence No. 1 of the facts based on the Plaintiff’s basic fact, the fact that the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage-holder as the Defendant is completed on May 25, 2012 with respect to 1/2 shares (hereinafter “instant land”) out of 16070 square meters of C forest land owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant land”) may be recognized on May 25, 2012.

2. Determination as to the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit

A. The plaintiff asserted that the above secured claim of the right to collateral security is a claim against the plaintiff of the defendant, and that the plaintiff sought cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the right to collateral security on the ground that there is no obligation or obligation between the plaintiff and the defendant. On this ground, the defendant asserts that the above secured claim of collateral security is unlawful since the auction was conducted on the land of this case, and the registration of the establishment

B. There is no legal interest in seeking the cancellation of the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage if the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage was cancelled on the ground of successful bid while the lawsuit seeking the implementation of the registration procedure for cancellation of the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage was pending.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da57904 Decided January 10, 2003). In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings in the statements in the evidence Nos. 1, 1, 1, 2, and 6, as seen above, a voluntary auction following the Defendant’s application for the instant land was conducted after the establishment of the right to collateral security, and the ownership transfer registration was completed on June 22, 2017, and at the same time, the registration of the establishment of the right to collateral security was cancelled ex officio, and the subsequent distribution schedule was made.

As long as the registration of establishment of a mortgage in the name of the defendant was cancelled in the above auction procedure, the plaintiff had no legal interest in seeking cancellation of the above registration.

3. As such, the instant lawsuit is unlawful and thus, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.