1. The Defendant is the Gwangju District Court with respect to the portion of 1/3 out of the area of 26,718 square meters of forest land in the Naman-gun, Naman-gun.

1. Basic facts

A. D Co., Ltd. received an order to pay B with the payment order from the Seoul Central District Court 2013rd 71639, Apr. 8, 2013, that “B would pay D Co., Ltd. the amount calculated at the rate of 24.5% per annum from April 5, 2013 to the date of full payment for KRW 60,643,703 and its KRW 8,614,288,” and the above payment order was finalized on May 15, 2013.

B. On June 21, 2013, E acquired claims against D Co., Ltd., and notified transfer of claims to B on June 23, 2014, and on January 26, 2018, the Plaintiff received again the claims acquired by E and notified the transfer of the claims to B on April 19, 2018.

(c)

B With respect to the portion of 1/3 (hereinafter “the instant forest”) out of the 26,718 square meters of the forest land in Yong-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Nam-gun, the ownership of which was B, the registration of the establishment of a collateral security right (hereinafter “registration of creation of collateral security right”) was completed on March 30, 2001, the maximum amount of the claim amount of KRW 20 million, the debtor, B, and the defendant of the right to collateral security (hereinafter “registration of creation of collateral security right”) based on the self-contract on March 29, 201.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (which include each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. Since the Plaintiff’s registration of creation of the instant right to collateral security is null and void because there is no secured claim, the Defendant is obligated to perform the registration procedure for cancellation of the instant right to collateral security, and the Plaintiff, a creditor of the instant right to collateral security, sought the cancellation registration procedure for the instant right to collateral security in subrogation of B in order to preserve the claim

B. The defendant lent KRW 20 million to the defendant around December 200, and completed the registration of the establishment of the right to collateral security of this case with the loan claim as collateral. Thus, the plaintiff's claim on the ground that there is no secured claim is without merit.

3. Matters concerning the existence of secured claims.