1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The plaintiff asserts that since each of the instant collateral security rights does not have any secured debt, the establishment registration of each of the instant collateral security rights is null and void, the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for cancellation registration of each of the instant collateral security rights to the plaintiff.

In establishing a right to collateral security under a third party’s name to secure a loan obligation arising from a transactional relationship with a third party, if a title truster who has trusted his own real estate to another person, registered the title trustee as an obligor according to the convenience between the parties, the obligation secured by the right to collateral security should be deemed as the obligation owed to the third party by the title truster.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 99Ma2870, Jul. 22, 1999). We examine the instant case.

Comprehensively taking account of the statements in Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2, and 3 (including the serial number), and the testimony and arguments of the witness Eul, Eul purchased each land listed in the separate sheet and held title trust to the plaintiff, and completed the registration of transfer of ownership in the plaintiff's name as to each of the above land. ② C borrowed KRW 70 million from the defendant on May 15, 2017; ③ the registration of transfer of ownership in the plaintiff's name as to each of the above land in order to secure the above loan obligation against the defendant; ③ the registration of creation of a collateral for each of the above land in order to secure the above loan obligation against the defendant; ③ the registration of creation of a collateral for each of the above land in lieu of C, the plaintiff, the title trustee of each of the above land, as the debtor, can be recognized; according to the above facts of recognition, it can be recognized that the above loan obligation of KRW 70 million against the defendant as the collateral security obligation of each of the above land in this case.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.