1. The Defendant: (a) on May 31, 2016, the Daegu District Court nutrition registration office with respect to the Plaintiff’s forest C forest land of 204,694 square meters.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 28, 2016, the Plaintiff purchased the instant land from the Defendant on April 28, 2016 (hereinafter “instant land”). On May 31, 2016, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer under the Plaintiff’s name, which was based on the purchase on the instant land as the receipt of the Daegu Nutrition District Court’s receipt by the Daegu District Court’s Registry on May 31, 2016 (No. 2955).

B. On May 31, 2016, the Plaintiff completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter “registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage of this case”) with respect to the instant land as the Head of Daegu District Court No. 2956, May 30, 2016, on the ground of a contract to establish a contract as of May 30, 2016, with the maximum debt amount of KRW 90,000,000,000, the debtor, the Plaintiff, and the mortgagee as the Defendant.

C. On November 14, 2016, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 90 million with the Defendant as the maximum debt amount of the right to collateral security of this case, setting the depositee and the cause of deposit as the maximum debt amount of the right to collateral security of this case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the facts of the determination as to the cause of the claim, the secured debt of the instant right to collateral security was extinguished due to the deposit of the maximum debt amount, and accordingly, the instant right to collateral security also extinguished by the appendant nature.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the neighboring mortgage of this case to the plaintiff, unless there are special circumstances.

B. The Defendant’s argument regarding the instant land: (a) determined the purchase price as KRW 250 million and sold the instant land as KRW 250 million; and (b) stated the purchase price as KRW 170 million only in the sales contract to reduce capital gains tax; (c) KRW 80 million out of the total purchase price, which was not paid as KRW 170 million, was responsible for and paid as KRW 170 million; and (d) paid as KRW 80 million in the event that D is not paid, the Plaintiff shall pay the remaining purchase price.