1. The Defendant received on May 15, 201 from the previous Jeju District Court’s office of registration on the real estate stated in the attached list to the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. C is the Plaintiff’s children, and D was friendly with C.

B. On May 15, 2013, regarding the real estate indicated in the separate sheet, the Plaintiff-owner, the obligor, and the maximum debt amount (hereinafter “the instant mortgage”) had completed the registration of the creation of the right to collateral security (hereinafter “the instant right to collateral security”) that caused the Defendant, the obligor, and the maximum debt amount to KRW 20 million.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The party's assertion and judgment as to it

A. 1) The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the instant right to collateral security was established by deception of the Defendant and D without the secured debt, and the Defendant has to implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the instant right to collateral security. 2) The Defendant’s summary of the Defendant’s assertion was granted a loan of KRW 15 million to C at D’s request, and the instant right to collateral security was established by the Plaintiff, the father of C, and thus, the Defendant did not have any obligation to cancel the registration of establishment of the instant right to collateral

B. In light of the following circumstances, the statement No. 1 and witness D’s testimony, which seem to correspond thereto, are hard to believe, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise, the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit, in light of the following circumstances: (a) the statement No. 1 and witness D’s testimony, which are deemed to correspond thereto, are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of pleadings as to whether there is a secured obligation under the instant right to collateral security.

① There is no objective evidence as to the secured obligation of the instant right to collateral security, such as a certificate of borrowing consistent with the Defendant’s argument.

② Unless there are special circumstances, a registration certificate is generally held by the holder of the right. The registration certificate of the right to collateral security of this case was kept from the beginning on the part of the plaintiff, not on the part of the defendant. The defendant's assertion and testimony of witness D as to the reasons why the plaintiff kept the above registration certificate.