1. The defendant on October 8, 2003, as to each real estate listed in the separate sheet to the plaintiff, the Jindo District Court, Jindo Branch Office, and the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. C and the network D are married, and the plaintiff is born between them, and the defendant is a child born between the deceased and the former spouse.

B. As to each of the real estates listed in the separate sheet with which the registration of ownership transfer was completed in C’s name (hereinafter “each of the instant real estates”), the registration of ownership establishment was completed on October 8, 2003 with regard to the maximum debt amount of KRW 65 million, the debtor C, the mortgagee, and the mortgagee as the defendant, as stated in paragraph (1) of this Article.

(hereinafter “instant collateral security”). C.

After that, on March 8, 2005, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of the defendant, and on May 4, 2009, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of the plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-3, Gap evidence 1-1-3, Eul evidence 1-1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Relevant legal principles and key issues are mortgages established by setting the maximum amount of the debt to be secured and reserving the determination of the debt in the future. Since multiple unspecified claims arising from the continuous transaction relations are established for the purpose of securing a certain limit in a settlement term in the future, separate from the act of establishing the right to collateral security, there must be a legal act establishing the secured claim of the right to collateral security, and the burden of proof as to whether there was a legal act establishing the secured claim of the right to collateral security at the time of the establishment of the right to collateral

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da72070 Decided December 24, 2009). Regarding the instant case, the Plaintiff filed a claim for the cancellation of the instant right to collateral while denying the existence of a legal act which establishes the claim secured by the instant right to collateral. As such, the Plaintiff asserted that the establishment of the instant right to collateral is null and void as a false agreement with the intent to evade compulsory execution from C’s creditors. However, the Plaintiff’s assertion is based on the Plaintiff’s assertion.