1. The Defendants are Busan District Court with regard to the Plaintiff’s share of 1653/3306 square meters out of 3,306 square meters in Gangseo-gu Busan District Court.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff and Defendant B are real estate business entities, and the Plaintiff has invested in a large number of real estate through Defendant B in Pyeongtaek.

B. On January 28, 2008, the Plaintiff was divided into the Gangseo-gu Busan Metropolitan Government Do 3,306 square meters on January 22, 2008, and the Plaintiff was divided into the F 4,951 square meters on January 22, 2008.

The registration of transfer of ownership of each share in the name of the plaintiff and E (the plaintiff's share 1653/3306 hereinafter referred to as "the share in this case") was made on the same day as the Busan District Court received No. 1604 on the same day. E shares 1653/306.

C. On January 28, 2008, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 200,000,000 from the Daedo Agricultural Cooperative (hereinafter “Seodo Agricultural Cooperative”) with the purchase fund of the said real estate, and on January 28, 2008, the Plaintiff completed the registration of creation of a neighboring establishment of the Hando Agricultural Cooperative (hereinafter “registration of creation of a neighboring establishment of a neighboring mortgage of the Plaintiff, the maximum debt amount of KRW 260,000,000, as the Busan District Court received KRW 1606 from the Busan District Court.

On January 31, 2008, Defendant B and C completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter “registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage of this case”) with respect to the instant shares as the obligor, the maximum debt amount of KRW 500,000,000, pursuant to Article 2099 of the Busan District Court’s receipt of the Busan District Court.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 3 and 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. (1) The registration of the establishment of a mortgage of the instant case on the Plaintiff’s assertion should be cancelled because the establishment of a mortgage of the instant case was completed without any secured claim.

(2) Defendant B’s assertion of the Defendants completed the establishment registration of the instant mortgage in the name of Defendant B and Defendant C, the creditor of Defendant B, in order to secure the claim for damages incurred when the Plaintiff arbitrarily disposed of the shares from G, under title trust with the Plaintiff, while purchasing the instant shares from G, and under title trust with the Plaintiff, the share of 1158/3306, and thus, the instant mortgage exists and is valid as it exists.

(b) judgment;