Since there is no evidence to prove whether the mortgagee bears the secured obligation, the mortgage of this case is null and void.

Since the right to collateral security of this case is null and void, the defendant Republic of Korea, the nominal owner of the registration of the seizure of this case based on the right to collateral security of this case, has a duty to express his consent to the cancellation registration of the registration of

Article 24 of the National Tax Collection Act: Requirements for Attachment

2013 Ghana 5013385. Expression of consent to cancel the right to collateral security

원고이ㅇㅇ

1. 신ㅇㅇ

2. Korea;

January 16, 2014

February 20, 2014

1. The plaintiff

가. 피고 신ㅇㅇ은 별지 기재 부동산에 관하여 ㅇㅇ지방법원 2008. 8. 25. 접수 제39881호로 마쳐진 근저당권설정등기의 말소등기절차를 이행하고,

B. The defendant Republic of Korea expressed its intention of acceptance on the registration of cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the above neighboring mortgage.

(n)

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants.

It is the same as the disposition (in relation to Paragraph 1-B of the order, the plaintiff sought the cancellation registration procedure for the registration of seizure to the defendant Republic of Korea, who is the person who has the right to seize the above collateral security right, but it is intended to seek the declaration of consent as above)

1. Basic facts

가. 원고는 피고 신ㅇㅇ에게 별지 기재 부동산(이하 '이 사건 부동산'이라 한다)에

관하여 채권최고액을 000원으로 하여 ㅇㅇ지방법원 2008. 8. 25. 접수 제39881호로 근저당권설정등기(이하 '이 사건 근저당권설정등기'라 한다)를 마쳐 주었다.

B. On July 18, 2012, an additional entry was made in the registration of the establishment of a mortgage in the name of the Defendant’s Republic of Korea on the registration of the establishment of a mortgage (hereinafter “registration of the seizure”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence No. 1, Evidence No. 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the mortgage of this case is null and void because there is no secured debt, the defendant

신ㅇㅇ은 이 사건 근저당권의 말소등기절차를 이행할 의무가, 무효인 이 사건 근저당권에 터잡은 이 사건 압류등기의 명의자인 피고 대한민국은 이 사건 근저당권등기의 말소등기에 대하여 승낙의 의사표시를 할 의무가 각 있다.

B. Determination

A mortgage is a mortgage created by setting only the maximum amount of the debt to be secured and reserving the determination of the debt in the future, which is a number of unspecified claims arising from continuous transactions.

Since a security right is established for the purpose of securing a certain limit in a settlement term for the future, there must be a legal act establishing a secured claim of the right to collateral separately from the act of establishing the right to collateral, and the burden of proof as to whether a legal act establishing the secured claim of the right to collateral exists at the time of the establishment of the right to collateral (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da72070, Dec. 24, 2009).

On the other hand, in cases where a claim with a right to collateral security is seized, the purpose of registering the seizure of the right to collateral security by means of additional registration in the registration of the establishment of the right to collateral security is to publicly announce the seizure of the right to collateral security because the seizure of the right to collateral security becomes effective when the right to collateral security is seized, which is a right attached to the right to collateral security. Thus, if there is no right to collateral security, the seizure order shall be null and void. In cases where the right to collateral security is cancelled, the seizure right holder shall express his/her consent to the cancellation of the right to collateral security as a third party with a interest in the registration (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Da7041, May 28,

Thus, the plaintiff's act of establishing the secured claim at the time of the registration of the right to collateral security.

위가 없었다고 다투는 이 사건에 있어서, 원고가 근저당권자인 피고 신ㅇㅇ에 대하여 피담보채무를 부담하는지 여부에 대한 입증책임은 이를 주장하는 피고들에게 있다고 할 것인데, 이를 입증할 아무런 증거가 없으므로 결국 이 사건 근저당권은 무효라 할 것이어서 원고에게 피고 신ㅇㅇ은 이 사건 근저당권의 말소등기절차를 이행할 의무가, 무효인 이 사건 근저당권에 터잡은 이 사건 압류등기의 명의자인 피고 대한민국은 이 사건 근저당권등기의 말소등기에 대하여 승낙의 의사표시를 할 의무가 각 있다 할 것 이다.

3. Conclusion

Thus, each of the claims against the defendants of this case against the plaintiff is justified, and all of them are accepted.

D. It is so decided as per Disposition.