1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. A. On April 2013, the Defendant entered into a construction contract with C Co., Ltd. (formerly: D Co., Ltd.; hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) on the building in Daegu Seo-gu and three lots of land (Seoul) with the contractor and Nonparty Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant construction contract”).

B. On November 20, 2013, the Plaintiff, as the wife of F, the representative of the non-party company, completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter “mortgage”) against the Defendant regarding the real estate indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) as one of his/her own titles, as the Defendant’s wife, the maximum debt amount of KRW 200 million, the Plaintiff, and the mortgagee as the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 4

2. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant borrowed KRW 200 million from the Defendant and set up the instant collateral security. However, since the Defendant did not pay the said money to the Plaintiff, there was no secured obligation for the instant collateral security, the Defendant is obligated to cancel the instant collateral security.

3. Determination

A. The content and scope of the secured obligation secured by the right to collateral is determined by a contract between the mortgagee and the right to collateral security (i.e., the right to collateral security) and the right to collateral security (i.e., the right to collateral security). In a case where at the time of establishing the right to collateral security agreement, the agreement between the mortgagee and the right to collateral security (i.e. the right to collateral security) is consistent with the intent to designate the secured obligation secured by the right to collateral and the obligor, even though there is a difference between the actual obligor and the obligor on the document to establish the right to collateral security or on the registry, the right

Supreme Court Decision 2010Da17840 Decided June 24, 2010