1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The defendant shall have jurisdiction over the real estate stated in the attached list to the plaintiff.

1. On March 8, 2016, the Plaintiff completed the instant establishment registration of a mortgage (hereinafter “mortgage”) with respect to the real estate indicated in the attached list owned by the Plaintiff as indicated in the order of the maximum debt amount of KRW 50 million with respect to the Defendant on March 8, 2016.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings]

2. The parties' assertion

A. On March 5, 2016 and March 17, 2016, the Plaintiff borrowed a total of KRW 15 million from C, which was put forward by the Defendant, and completed the registration of creation of a mortgage of this case to secure this. The Plaintiff repaid KRW 15 million to the Defendant on December 5, 2016, and thus, the secured obligation of the said right to collateral was entirely extinguished. Accordingly, the Defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a mortgage of this case to the Plaintiff. (2) As the Defendant asserted, the obligation of KRW 35 million against D, E, F, and G C was not taken over, and thus, the obligation of KRW 35 million is not included in the secured obligation of the establishment of a mortgage of this case.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that: (a) on March 7, 2015, the Plaintiff acquired the debt of KRW 35 million on August 16, 2010 against D, E, F, and G C; and (b) C transferred the said debt to the Defendant.

The secured debt of the instant right to collateral security is the aggregate amount of the Plaintiff’s claim’s debt of KRW 15 million and the above KRW 35 million, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 15 million out of the above amount. As long as the obligation acquired as above has not been fully extinguished, the Defendant is not obliged to implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of the registration of the establishment of collateral security of the instant case.

3. Since the judgment of the right to collateral security is for the purpose of collateral security, in principle, the creditor and the mortgagee should be the same person, but the third party shall set up the right to collateral security.