1.With respect to the following real property:

A. Defendant A received on July 3, 2013 from the Dosan Registry No. 35239.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 22, 2011, the Bankrupt Pakistan Savings Bank extended a loan of KRW 370 million to D, and on June 21, 2011, set up a collateral security of KRW 1.3 billion with the maximum debt amount on the real estate indicated in D’s order.

B. The Defendant Industrial Bank of Korea completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage (No. 20976) with the debtor E and the maximum debt amount of KRW 540,000,000,000 on the real estate indicated in the text. The registration of creation of a new mortgage was transferred to Defendant A on June 27, 2013 due to subrogation on the ground of the registration of creation of a new mortgage.

C. On the other hand, the defendant Industrial Bank of Korea completed the registration of the establishment of the neighboring mortgage on the real estate indicated in the order that the debtor D and the maximum debt amount shall be KRW 540,000,000.

The Pakistan Savings Bank was declared bankrupt on October 30, 2012, and the plaintiff was appointed as a trustee in bankruptcy on the same day.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap 1 and 2 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The right to collateral security against Defendant A is for the purpose of collateral security, and in principle, the obligee and the mortgagee shall be the same person. Where the right to collateral security is established in the name of a third party who is not the obligee, there is an agreement between the obligee, the obligor, and the third party regarding the right to collateral security, and there is no special circumstance to deem that the right has been actually reverted to the third party by means of assignment of claims, a contract for a third party, an indivisible relationship, etc., the registration of creation of

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Da50055 Decided January 11, 2007, etc.). However, according to the overall purport of the arguments as to the statement No. 3, it is acknowledged that Defendant A paid money to the Industrial Bank of Korea on June 27, 2013 instead of E was actually borne by the e-mailing Tourism Development Company. Thus, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the claim for reimbursement against e of e-mail was actually reverted to Defendant A. Thus, it is an actual obligee.