1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. As to the instant land owned by E, the Defendants are the first-class collateral security holders, who were established with the obligor E and the maximum debt amount of KRW 260 million (hereinafter “the instant mortgage”) under the received No. 6422, Feb. 19, 2010, with respect to the Suwon District Court’s Yangyeong-si registry office as to the instant land.

B. As to the instant land, the Plaintiff and F are the second-class mortgagee who was set up the right to collateral security of KRW 1 billion with the obligor E and the maximum debt amount under No. 10502, which was received on March 22, 2010.

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserted that: (a) on March 16, 2010, E loaned KRW 500 million from the Plaintiff on March 16, 2010, and KRW 300 million from F on March 18, 2010, and repaid all the secured debt of the instant right; (b) the instant right to collateral security should be cancelled; and (c) thereafter, even if Defendant B again lent money to E on March 25, 2010; and (d) was secured by the instant right to collateral security, it cannot be asserted against the Plaintiff as a third party with an interest in registration as it constitutes the usefulness of registration of invalidation, and thus, the instant right to collateral security still becomes null and void.

As to this, the Defendants asserted that the secured obligation of this case was either finalized or terminated, and even if the secured obligation was repaid, the validity of the instant secured obligation is not affected.

B. Determination means a mortgage created by reserving only the maximum amount of the claim to be secured and reserving the determination of the obligation in the future. In such cases, the extinction or transfer of the obligation until the secured obligation is determined does not affect the right to collateral (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da7176, May 24, 2002). In a case where the authenticity of the document establishing the right to collateral security, which is a disposal document, is recognized, the content of the declaration of intent should be interpreted in accordance with the language and text of the contract, barring any special circumstance.