1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B is the High Government District Court with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 4, 2010, the Plaintiff completed on November 4, 2010, the establishment registration of a mortgage on each of the real estates listed in the separate sheet owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant real estate”) on November 4, 2010, following the conclusion of the contract, the maximum debt amount of KRW 1 billion, the debtor, the Plaintiff, and the mortgagee B’s establishment registration on each of the instant real estates indicated in the separate sheet owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant establishment registration”).

B. On January 14, 2011, Defendant Goyang-si completed the attachment registration of each of the instant collateral security claims on the grounds of Defendant B’s default on local taxes, Defendant Republic of Korea completed the attachment registration on October 14, 2013 on the grounds of Defendant B’s default on national taxes.

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-6, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 1, Eul's evidence 1-2, Eul's evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The judgment of the court below is a mortgage which establishes only the maximum amount of the debt to be secured, and reserving the determination of the debt in the future. Since multiple unspecified claims arising from continuous business relations are established for the purpose of securing a certain limit in a settlement term in the future, it is necessary to establish a claim secured by the right to collateral separately from the act of establishing the right to collateral, and the burden of proof as to whether there was a legal act establishing the claim secured by the right to collateral at the time of establishment of the right to collateral has been asserted

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da72070 Decided December 24, 2009, supra, we cannot accept Defendant Goyang-si’s argument that the existence of the secured claim is presumed according to the presumption of establishment registration of the neighboring mortgage. Meanwhile, in cases where the secured claim is seized, the purpose of registering the seizure of the secured claim by means of additional registration on the establishment registration of the neighboring mortgage is to record the seizure of the secured claim by means of additional registration on the establishment registration of the mortgage, if the secured claim of the secured mortgage is seized, the seizure of the secured claim becomes invalid even in cases of the secured claim, which is a right subordinate to the secured right