1. The Defendant shall make the former Jeju District Court’s net registry office with respect to the Plaintiff’s share of 1/3 of the 31,118 square meters of the forest A forest land in Jeon Chang-gun.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 1, 2004, the Plaintiff awarded a contract for the Construction of the Dasan-gun B and the A Ground Hospital for the Aged (hereinafter “instant construction”) to the Construction Company, and the Construction of the Dool Construction Co., Ltd. was awarded a contract for the construction of the Dool Construction Co., Ltd. on March 30, 2004 by setting the construction period from April 1, 2004 to August 10, 2004 and the construction amount of KRW 410 million from the construction amount to August 10, 204.

B. The Plaintiff, on the ground that on December 28, 2004, concluded a mortgage agreement on the share of 1/3 of the value of 31,118 square meters out of A forest land A in the Jeon Chang-gun, Jeon Chang-gun, the Plaintiff completed on January 4, 2005, the registration of creation of a mortgage (hereinafter “registration of creation of a mortgage of this case”) with the Defendant, a corporation, Sungwon Steel, C, and the maximum debt amount, five hundred million won.

C. On April 13, 2005, the Plaintiff drafted a settlement-combined statement stating that the instant construction work will be suspended and settled by April 10, 2005, by setting the settlement-combined amount of KRW 498,438,000, between the Defendant and Sung Co., Ltd.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1 and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff did not execute the instant construction, and C completed the instant construction within one year from the date of completion of the construction by stating that C would accept the construction cost after completing the instant construction within one year from the date of completion of the construction, which was the Plaintiff’s non-execution of the instant construction. However, the Plaintiff asserted that C should cancel the said registration on the ground that C did not perform the instant construction, and there was no secured claim in the instant construction due to C’s failure to perform the construction. However, there is no evidence to prove that C had received the registration of the establishment of the instant neighboring construction by deceiving the Plaintiff as above, and there is no evidence to prove that C had received the registration of the establishment of the instant neighboring construction. This part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

(b).