1. On May 11, 2012, the Defendant issued the Incheon District Court’s reinforcement registry office with respect to each real estate stated in the attached list to the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff completed the registration procedure for transfer of ownership on April 17, 2012 from the Incheon District Court’s reinforcement registry office, which was received on May 11, 2012, as the receipt of No. 12365, with respect to each of the instant real estate from C.

B. Meanwhile, the Defendant completed the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage with respect to each of the instant real estate as the Incheon District Court’s reinforcement registry office, No. 12451, May 11, 2012, the maximum debt amount of KRW 30 million, the Plaintiff, and the mortgagee as the Defendant.

(hereinafter referred to as the “mortgage of this case”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 8 (including serial numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The parties' assertion

A. Since the Plaintiff’s assertion does not exist the secured debt of the instant right to collateral security, the establishment registration of the instant right to collateral security is null and void.

Therefore, the registration of the establishment of the neighboring mortgage of this case should be cancelled.

B. In the course of the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff purchased each of the instant real estate from C, the Defendant lent KRW 32,126,779 to the Plaintiff’s husband D, and completed the registration of the establishment of the instant neighboring mortgage in order to secure the loan claim. Therefore, the secured claim exists.

3. Determination

A. The right to collateral security is a mortgage established by setting only the maximum amount of the debt to be secured and reserving the determination of the debt in the future (Article 357(1) of the Civil Act), and is established with the aim of securing a certain limit at a settlement term in the future. Thus, separate from the act of establishing the right to collateral security, there is a legal act establishing the right to collateral security, and the burden of proof as to whether there was a legal act establishing the right to collateral security at the time of establishing the right to collateral security at the time of establishing the right to collateral security exists.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da72070 Decided December 24, 2009, etc.). B.

Therefore, according to the above legal principles, the defendant raises objection between the plaintiff.