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 premise for determination

A. In the first instance trial, the Plaintiff filed a claim for cancellation of the registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter “registration of establishment of a neighboring commercial building of this case”) listed in the attached Table 2 on the real estate listed in the attached Table 1 (hereinafter “instant commercial building”) and for non-permission of compulsory execution based on the instant right to collateral security.

However, in order to suspend an auction procedure for exercising the security right to real estate, an objection against the decision on commencing auction pursuant to Article 603-3(1) of the former Civil Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 6626 of Jan. 26, 2002, hereinafter the same shall apply) shall be filed pursuant to Article 603-3(2) and a lawsuit demanding suspension of execution equivalent to Article 484(2) may be brought pursuant to Article 603-3(2), and the progress may be suspended by receiving an order for suspension of execution corresponding to Article 507 of the former Civil Procedure Act, and it shall not be allowed to file a lawsuit

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 86Da152, Mar. 10, 1987; 2002Da43684, Sept. 24, 2002). The Plaintiff voluntarily withdrawn the part of the claim seeking the denial of compulsory execution in a trial in accordance with the above legal doctrine.

B. Meanwhile, the first instance court revised each part of the part concerning the burden of litigation costs and the purport of the claim through the decision of May 3, 2016 and the decision of May 27, 2016.

This Court determines the plaintiff's claim based on the results reflected in the judgment of the first instance sentenced on April 28, 2016 and the decision of correction of each of the above judgments.

2. Basic facts

A. On July 24, 2014, the Plaintiff’s buyer and D entered into a sales contract with the Defendant for the sale of the instant commercial buildings at KRW 820 million with respect to the sales price of the instant commercial buildings among E-B-B-B-B-B-S building (hereinafter “instant building”) newly built and sold by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

The first of this case is the contract for sale in lots prepared at the time.