1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. In the first instance court, the Plaintiff filed a claim for cancellation of provisional registration against the Defendant and the claim for cancellation of the right to collateral security. The first instance court accepted the claim for cancellation of the provisional registration and dismissed the claim for cancellation of the right to collateral security.

In response, only the plaintiff appealed against the part against the plaintiff, so this Court's judgment is limited to the claim for cancellation of the above right to collateral security.

2. Basic facts

A. On February 22, 2006, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against B with the Seoul Central District Court No. 2006Kadan84988, and was sentenced on April 27, 2006 to the effect that “B shall pay to the Plaintiff delay damages for KRW 46,379,355 and KRW 36,184,869.” The above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

B. On the other hand, on January 1, 2003, B entered into a mortgage agreement with the Defendant on 229/863 shares of each of the real estates listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant share”), with the maximum debt amount of 100 million won as to each of the real estates listed in the separate sheet, and on the other hand, B completed the registration of creation of mortgage on February 10, 2003 as stated in the purport of the claim in the Defendant’s future.

(B) On June 5, 2003, the Defendant entered into a pre-sale agreement with regard to the instant shares, and on the ground thereof, on June 11, 2003, the Defendant completed the provisional registration of the right to claim ownership transfer stated in the purport of the claim.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, significant facts, Gap evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 3-1, 2, Eul evidence 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

3. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserted that the right to collateral security of this case did not exist from i) originally, or ii) as a result of the completion of the extinctive prescription, the right to collateral security of this case had already been extinguished. Thus, the plaintiff asserted that the right to collateral security of this case was invalid registration of the establishment of mortgage of this case, and sought cancellation of the registration of establishment of mortgage of this case against the defendant

As to this, the defendant.