1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the real estate indicated in the attached Form (hereinafter “instant building”)

B. On November 29, 2012, B completed the registration of creation of a mortgage (hereinafter “registration of creation of a mortgage”) on the instant building No. 201 offered by the Plaintiff as a security on November 29, 2012, with a view to securing the cost of goods (e.g., paint, etc.) to be received from C (hereinafter “C”), and the Defendant completed the registration of creation of a mortgage (hereinafter “registration of creation of a mortgage”) on August 2, 2013 due to the transfer of the said claim from B.

【Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 3-2, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments;

A. On May 10, 2013, Plaintiff B returned the goods (such as paint, etc.) equivalent to the part exceeding KRW 80,000,000 from C, and is not being carried out even after having cancelled the registration of the establishment of the creation of the neighboring building of this case, instead of being subject to the establishment of the right to collateral security on D’s “Seoul Eth Eth 3th 302 (hereinafter “the substitute building of this case”)” owned by D.

Even if it is not so, the secured claim of the registration of creation of a new mortgage of this case is one-time claim for B-C, and thus, the three-year prescription has expired in accordance with Article 163 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Code.

Therefore, the Defendant, who completed the supplementary registration prior to the registration of the establishment of the neighboring mortgage of this case, is obligated to implement the registration procedure for cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the neighboring

B. Around December 6, 2012, the Defendant received the preservation claim against the registration of the establishment of the instant neighboring mortgage from B, and B notified the transfer of claims around that time. As such, the Defendant cannot assert that the rejection of performance between the Plaintiff and B, which was drafted around May 10, 2013, was against the Defendant.

Even if not, B did not fulfill the conditions on the implementation note prepared by B, and the registration of the establishment of the above neighboring mortgage.