1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of each of the instant real estate, and the Defendant is the mortgagee of the right to collateral security established on each of the instant real estate.

B. On October 5, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a mortgage contract with the Defendant with respect to each of the instant real estate at issue with Nonparty B, the mortgagee, the Defendant, and the maximum debt amount of KRW 150,000 with respect to each of the instant real estate. Accordingly, the registration of establishment of a mortgage was completed.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion asserts that the secured obligation of KRW 88,617,026, which was borne by B, the secured debtor of the foregoing establishment registration, was extinguished by the acquisition and repayment of all of the secured obligation by C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”).

B. Determination 1) The Defendant has been engaged in the transaction of supplying goods with B from February 201 to October 5, 201, and the establishment of the above collateral security right was made for securing the unpaid obligation owed by B to the Defendant as of October 5, 2012, and the amount of the collateral security amount of KRW 88,617,026 as of the above collateral security right does not conflict between the parties, or may be recognized by the statement in the evidence No. 1 (B). 2) Whether the assumption of obligation claimed by the Plaintiff refers to the cumulative assumption of obligation, or whether it means the assumption of obligation with respect to which the obligation is discharged, is unclear according to the purport of the assertion.

Therefore, all of the two cases shall be judged, and first, the issue of whether the obligation with immunity has been established or not.

Since the assumption of obligation is effective to lose the claim against the existing debtor, the consent of the creditor is required to take effect.

(See Supreme Court Decision 98Da33765 delivered on November 24, 1998). In this case, according to the statements in subparagraphs B and B and witness B, the non-party company was established on November 1, 2013 and its representative was B, and the defendant was established after the non-party company was established between the non-party company and the non-party company.