The Defendant, as the Plaintiff

A. As to each real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 list, the Suwon District Court shall make a two-dimensional registry office on July 2017.

1. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1-1 through 5 and the entire arguments, the judgment of the court below regarding each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 owned by the plaintiff shall be rendered on July 14, 2017, with the maximum debt amount of KRW 300 million.

On July 14, 2017, with respect to the fact that the registration of creation of the right to collateral security was completed, and each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2 list owned by the plaintiff, the order of KRW 200,000,000,000,000 won.

It can be recognized that the registration of establishment of the right to collateral security stated in the paragraph has been completed.

B. The Plaintiff asserts that the registration of establishment of each right to collateral security should be cancelled, since there is no legal act establishing each right to collateral security as above.

The defendant, from August 31, 2010, invested more than KRW 700 million in the business of developing and selling child houses operated by the plaintiff from around August 31, 2010, suffered losses from the plaintiff's unfair business execution, resulting in the plaintiff's failure to recover the total amount of the above investment. Accordingly, since the plaintiff agreed to compensate the defendant for the above losses and set up each of the above collateral mortgages as security, the above registration of each of the collateral security rights is valid.

C. The right to collateral security is a mortgage established by settling only the maximum amount of the obligation to be secured and reserving the determination of an obligation in the future (Article 357(1) of the Civil Act); when it is confirmed that there is no secured claim of the right to collateral security, the registration of establishment of the right to collateral security should be cancelled; and when there is an assertion that there is no legal act to establish the secured claim of the right to collateral security at the time the right to collateral security is established, the burden of proof as to whether there is such legal act is asserted (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Da225011, Sept. 12, 2017).