1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing this case is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing this case is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article

From the second bottom of the judgment of the court of first instance, the parts from “A” to “B” to “B” in the second part of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be applied as follows:

“On January 2, 2015, Cheongju District Court No. 9472, Jan. 22, 2015, C registered the creation of a neighboring mortgage in the name of D, the debtor C and the maximum debt amount of which are 150,000,000, (hereinafter referred to as “prior mortgage”).

In addition, on April 6, 2015, the registration of the establishment of the instant right to collateral security under the name of the Defendant was completed, and on June 29, 2015, the registration of the establishment of the instant right to collateral security was revoked. The Plaintiff did not consent or consent to the registration of the establishment of the instant right to collateral security under the name of the Defendant, and the instant right to collateral security is null and void since there is no consent or consent to the registration of the establishment of the instant right to collateral security under the name of the Defendant. The instant right to collateral security is null and void from the third bottom of the judgment of the first instance. Accordingly, the first to

In light of the above facts, the plaintiff's assertion seeking the cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the mortgage of this case on the premise that the plaintiff did not consent or consent to the establishment of the mortgage of this case is without merit.

In addition, the contents and scope of the secured obligation secured by the right to collateral is not determined by the agreement or delegation between the mortgagee and the debtor, but by the contract establishing the right to collateral between the mortgagee and the debtor.

The Plaintiff believed that “a request to offer the instant real estate as security and borrow KRW 40 million” according to the end of C, the secured obligation secured by the instant collateral security is KRW 40 million, and even if the instant collateral security right was established, as seen above.