1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. The plaintiff's assertion as to the cause of the plaintiff's claim is a surety who has established each right to collateral on the real estate of this case owned by the plaintiff in order to secure F's obligations to F's creditors at F' request, and the defendants and the designated parties E are the creditors who acquired all the claims secured on each of the above right to collateral.

Since the secured claim of each of the above secured claims has ceased to exist due to repayment, the Defendants and the designated parties E are obligated to implement the registration procedure for cancellation of each of the above secured claims to the Plaintiff.

2. Determination as to the defendants' defense prior to the merits

A. The lawsuit of this case by the Defendants shall be dismissed for the following reasons.

1) The registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage stated in the purport of the claim regarding the instant real estate was entirely cancelled due to a voluntary auction on November 2, 2015. 2) The Plaintiff had already filed a lawsuit against the Defendants and the designated parties E in subrogation of the Plaintiff, as Seoul Central District Court 2013Gahap549244, on behalf of the Plaintiff. At present, the appeal is in progress by the Seoul High Court 2015Na2034046. The instant lawsuit constitutes a duplicate suit.

B. There is no legal interest in seeking cancellation of the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage in the course of a lawsuit seeking the implementation of the procedures for registration of cancellation of the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage on the market, if the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage is cancelled on the ground of auction

(2) According to the record of the evidence No. 5, the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage on the instant real estate can be revoked on November 2, 2015 due to sale by voluntary auction (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da37001, Apr. 26, 2013). As such, there is no legal interest in seeking the cancellation of the registration of a neighboring mortgage.

Therefore, the instant lawsuit is unlawful.

3. It is so decided as per Disposition because the lawsuit of this case is unlawful and thus dismissed.