1. On December 23, 2010, the Defendant issued a registration office of the Seoul Northern District Court with respect to the real estate stated in the attached list to the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 23, 2010, the Plaintiff completed the registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter “registration of establishment of a neighboring real estate of this case”) indicated in the attached list owned by the Plaintiff to the Defendant on the ground of the debtor D, the mortgagee, the Defendant, and the maximum debt amount of KRW 79,200,00 on December 23, 2010, as to the real estate indicated in the attached list owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

B. As to the instant real estate, the Defendant filed an application for a voluntary auction of real estate with the Seoul Northern District Court E, and the decision to commence the auction was rendered on March 19, 2018.

C. On June 7, 2018, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 79,200,000 for the maximum debt amount of the instant mortgage creation registration and KRW 668,440 for auction expenses, a sum of KRW 79,868,440,440 for the Defendant as the principal deposit in the amount of KRW 3608,00 for the establishment registration of the instant neighboring mortgage.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. Since a person who has pledged his/her property to secure another person's obligation, who has created a security right on his/her property, takes a physical limited liability within the scope of the value of the property or the maximum debt amount recorded in the registry, the person who has pledged his/her property to secure another person's property to secure another person's obligation is not obligated to make a claim for cancellation of the establishment registration of a mortgage,

(See Supreme Court Decision 74Da998 delivered on December 10, 1974, and Supreme Court Decision 2003Da30890 Delivered on January 16, 2004, etc.). B.

As to the instant case, the Plaintiff is a surety who created the instant collateral security in order to secure the Defendant’s debt. If the Plaintiff deposited KRW 79,200,000, the maximum debt amount as the surety, the secured debt is extinguished in relation to the surety’s property. Therefore, the Defendant, the mortgagee, is obligated to cancel the registration of the establishment of the instant collateral security.

3. Conclusion.