1. All of the plaintiff's claims that the court changed in exchange are dismissed.

2. The Plaintiff’s total costs of litigation.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 2006, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 40 million from Defendant B as collateral and completed the registration of creation of a mortgage over the maximum debt amount of KRW 50 million with respect to the area of KRW 1,927 square meters prior to the division owned by the Plaintiff as the Incheon District Court’s Net Branch of the Gwangju District Court, No. 22597, Nov. 23, 2006, No. 22597, Nov. 23, 2006.

(hereinafter referred to as “the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage of this case”). (b)

On July 29, 2015, Defendant Republic of Korea, a creditor against Defendant B, seized the instant right to collateral security, and completed the supplementary registration on July 90, 2015.

C. On June 8, 2012, the land prior to the said subdivision was divided into 792 square meters and 1,135 square meters prior to E, E, a leisure time, and the registration of the establishment of the establishment of the instant neighboring land and the attachment of the Defendant Republic of Korea accordingly continue to exist in the area of 792 square meters prior to the leisure time E.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings (for defendant B, service by public notice)

2. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff paid KRW 30 million to the defendant B on March 20, 2007, and paid KRW 10 million in installments over ten times from March 28, 2007 to March 28, 2008, and fully repaid the secured obligation of the contract of this case, the registration of creation of the mortgage of this case must be cancelled due to the extinguishment of the secured obligation. The defendant Republic of Korea, an execution creditor of the claim of this case, is a third party with interest, and is obligated under the substantive law to accept the registration of cancellation of the establishment of the mortgage of this case.

3. Determination

A. According to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 3, it is recognized that (i) the plaintiff borrowed 30 million won from D on March 20, 2007, and (ii) the plaintiff remitted 10 million won in total to defendant B and non-party F on ten occasions from March 28, 2007 to March 28, 2008.

B. However, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by Gap evidence No. 3 and the purport of the entire pleadings, the above circumstances are as follows.