1. As to each real estate listed in the separate sheet to the Plaintiff:

A. The Eastern District Court (Seoul Northern District Court) Registry.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 25, 2001, Nonparty D, the former husband of the Plaintiff, completed each registration of ownership transfer on the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

B. On April 11, 2002, the Plaintiff reported divorce with D.

C. The Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant real estate on August 19, 2005, based on the property division judgment rendered on April 9, 2002.

On March 30, 2007, the Defendant issued an order of KRW 180 million with respect to the instant real property to the Plaintiff and the maximum debt amount of KRW 180 million.

On July 24, 2007, the registration of the establishment of the right to collateral security as set forth in the claim, No. 1-B.

The registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage mentioned in paragraph (1) (hereinafter referred to as the “registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage of this case”) was completed.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 and 13 (including branch numbers, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Plaintiff 1) The establishment registration of the instant collateral security is null and void as it was made without the Plaintiff’s delegation or consent. 2) There was no fact that D concluded the instant collateral security contract on behalf of the Plaintiff.

Since the act of representation does not exist in itself, the expression representation cannot be established.

B. Defendant 1) The Plaintiff, on behalf of the Plaintiff, granted D the right to comprehensively manage the property including the right to borrow money and to create the right to collateral security on behalf of the Plaintiff. (2) Even if there is no legitimate right of representation against D, the instant mortgage agreement constitutes an expression agent beyond the authority under Article 126 of the Civil Act.

3. Determination as to the cause of action

A. In the event that the registration of establishment of a mortgage in accordance with the relevant legal principles is not by the owner of the real estate but by the third party involved in the act of disposal, the mortgagee claims that the third party is the agent of the owner of the real estate.