The right to collateral security shall not be null and void pursuant to the agreement on title trust or shall not be null and void against the appendant nature.

Since it can be seen that there is an indivisible creditor's relationship, the right to collateral security is valid.

Article 4 of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder's Name; Article 369 of the Civil Act

2015Gahap50930 De-mortgage

Korea

1.Korea A2.LB

August 21, 2015

September 4, 2015

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

With respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1, the defendant Han-B performed the registration procedure for cancellation of the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage that was completed on June 29, 201 by the Incheon District Court Strengthening Registry No. 20348, which was completed on June 29, 2011 to the defendant Parkb, and the defendant Parkb shall implement the registration procedure for establishment of a neighboring mortgage on the ground of an agreement made on June 27, 201 to the

1. Facts of recognition;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or may be recognized by comprehensively taking into account each entry in Gap evidence 1 through 6, Eul evidence 7, Eul evidence 3 (including each number), and the whole purport of pleadings:

A. Tax claims against the Plaintiff (CC)

Based on the time of the Plaintiff’s filing of the instant lawsuit, CC added value as indicated below as follows.

The total amount of 505,873,450 won was delinquent due to taxes and global income taxes.

The payment deadline for serial tax items in arrears;

1. Value-added tax 912,870 won on March 31, 2003

2. Value-added tax: 140,810,930 won March 31, 2003

3 Corporate Tax 1,611,970 won on May 31, 2003

Value-added tax 2,127,520 won on October 31, 2003

Value-added tax 320,960 won on November 30, 2003

6. Securities transaction tax of 3,379,600 won on February 29, 2004

7 Value-added tax 889,510 won on March 31, 2004

8 Value-added tax 5,398,130 won March 31, 2004

9 Corporate Tax 1,116,130 won on July 31, 2004

Value-added tax 9,473,400 won on July 31, 2004

11. Global income tax: 6,237,840 won on March 31, 2005

12 April 30, 2005, global income tax of 3,762,870 won

13. Global income tax: 5,761,530 won on August 31, 2004

14. Transfer income tax: 324,070,190 won October 31, 2007

Total 14 505,873,450 won

B. The reason why the establishment registration of a mortgage was completed under Defendant Han AA

1) On June 28, 2006, 2006, Incheon District Court 2006Gahap8197 against Defendant ParkB.

The loan claim lawsuit was filed, and the defendant ParkB had filed the claim lawsuit against the formerCC as the Incheon District Court 2007Gahap12988.

2) 위 소송의 제1심 법원은 2008. 11. 28. 기CC의 본소 청구와 피고 박BB의 반소청구를 각 일부 인용하는 판결을 선고하였고, 위 제1심 판결에 대하여 기CC과 피고 박BB 모두가 항소 �서울고등법원 2009나8811(본소), 2009나8828(반소) �하였는데, 항소심 법원은 2011. 6. 28. '기CC은 본소 청구를, 피고 박BB은 반소 청구를 각 포기하고, 피고 박BB은 위자료 명목으로 원고에게 5,000만 원을 2011. 12. 31.까지 지급하기로 한다'는 내용으로 화해권고결정(이하 '이 사건 화해권고결정'이라 한다)을 하였으며, 그 무렵 이 사건 화해권고결정이 그대로 확정되었다.

3) On the other hand, as the previousCC and the defendant ParkB continued to have filed the above five-year lawsuit, the decision to recommend the settlement in this case was made.

On June 27, 2011, prior to the conclusion of the appellate court of the instant lawsuit, a written agreement (Evidence B(Evidence B(Evidence B(3)) and an additional agreement (Evidence A(Evidence A) were prepared in the presence of attorney-at-law of both parties in order to resolve the dispute between the parties (hereinafter referred to as the "instant agreement and additional agreement"). Of the content of the instant agreement dated June 27, 2011, the parts relating to the instant case are as follows.

- Agreements -

The flagCC (hereinafter referred to as the "A") and the defendant ParkB (hereinafter referred to as the "B") shall prepare this Agreement, in accordance with mutual faith, by promising to resolve all the disputes in and out of the lawsuit with the following contents:

1. With respect to the sale and distribution of each real estate listed in the Schedule (I) of the separate sheet (each real estate listed in Schedule 1 of this case and any real estate listed in Schedule 1 of Annex II of this case; hereinafter the same shall apply):

A. irrespective of the outcome of the lawsuit in the Seoul High Court loans No. 2009Na8811 (main claim) and the case of confirmation of the existence of obligation (Counterclaim) No. 2009Na8828 (Counterclaim), Party A and Party B promised to promptly sell each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2009Na8828 (Counterclaim) to resolve the dispute in a smooth manner, and pay Party A a half of the remaining amount after deducting all the expenses listed in the following sub-paragraph (Ⅰ) from the proceeds of the sale.

not more than b. paragraph (c) omitted

2. As to the sale and distribution of each real estate listed in the separate sheet (II) (as to each real estate listed in paragraphs 2 to 11 of Schedule 2 of this case; hereinafter the same shall apply):

A and B undertake to cooperate with each other at the time of disposing of each real estate listed in attached Form 2, while executing the commitments described in paragraph 1.

가. ① 별지 (Ⅱ) 목록 기재 1번 부동산은 법원 판결(인천지방법원 2007가단118902호 판결을 말한다)의 취지에 따라 ▥▥종합건설 주식회사 명의로 소유권이전등기를 경료한 다음, 즉시 타에 매각 처분하고, 그 매매대금에서 모든 경비와 제세공과금을 공제한 나머지 잔액을 갑과 을에게 50:50으로 분배하기로 하고,

(2) The part of paragraphs (e) through (5) shall be omitted.

3. (a) In the process of sale and distribution above, Gap and Eul undertake to cooperate with them in good faith without putting their faith.

B. Even if the Seoul High Court loans No. 2009Na8811 (principal lawsuit), and the outcome of the lawsuit in the case of the confirmation of the existence of a debt (Counterclaim), including the part ordering payment to Gap, regardless of the pretext thereof, the legal relationship between Gap and Eul shall be adjusted into the proceeds of real estate sale under this Agreement, and the above amount ordered to be paid in the above lawsuit shall not be actually exchanged.

(c) Upon completion of the preparation of any or more agreements, the existing obligations and obligations between A and B shall be fully replaced by the legal relations under this Agreement, the remaining obligations and obligations shall be completely extinguished, and in relation to this case, between A and B shall not raise any objection civil or criminal, in the future.

- Additional Agreements -

The flagCC and Defendant ParkB agreed to sell each real estate listed in the separate agreement on June 27, 201, and to distribute the remaining proceeds fairly to 50:50,00, after deducting the prescribed expenses from the sale of each real estate listed in the attached Form I and (Ⅱ) attached to the agreement;

1. As to the sale and distribution of each real estate listed in Paragraph 1 of the above Agreement, i.e., the attached Table 1), the Defendant ParkB, under the name of the Defendant Han-A designated by the CC as a collateral for the implementation of the above Agreement, promising the immediate establishment of a collateral security right of KRW 400 million with respect to the two parcels of each of the above real estate (each of the real estate listed in the attached Table 1 of this case) with the maximum debt amount

(Real estate for which collateral security is created)

① ○○○○-si ○○○-gun ○○○○○-ri 133 square meters 1,289 square meters

② ○○○○-si ○○○-gun ○○○○○-do 127-2 Spot 1,075 square meters

(b) confirm, with respect to the foregoing right to collateral security, that such right has only effect within the extent of the amount allocated to the flagCC as a collateral for the distribution of the share to the flagCC, and promises that the dual claim with Defendant Han-A is not absolute;

Details of the additional agreement not exceeding hereinafter omitted

4) According to the agreement on June 27, 2011, Defendant ParkB completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter referred to as the “mortgage of this case”) with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 owned by Defendant ParkB (hereinafter referred to as the “each real estate of this case”) as of June 29, 201 by the Incheon District Court, No. 20348, which was received on June 29, 2011, with the debtor ParkB, Defendant Han-A, and the maximum amount of debt KRW 400 million.

2. Judgment on the claim for cancellation of the right to collateral security of this case

A. The plaintiff's assertion

As a matter of principle, a creditor and a mortgagee should be the same person as the right to collateral security. However, according to the agreement on June 27, 2011, the instant right to collateral security is to secure a claim for distribution against Defendant ParkB, and the instant right to collateral security was completed under Defendant ParkB’s name even though Defendant ParkB had been a creditor of Defendant ParkB, and thus, the instant right to collateral security was completed under Defendant ParkB’s name. Therefore, the instant right to collateral security was completed based on a title trust agreement, and thus, is deemed null and void due to either invalid registration or lack of secured obligation. Furthermore, Defendant ParkBB is obligated to implement the registration procedure for establishment of a collateral security with respect to each of the instant real estate as a secured claim to CC under the agreement on June 27, 2011.

Accordingly, the plaintiff is entitled to exercise the right of subrogation of the CC as the right of subrogation of the CC with claims against the CC as the right of subrogation. Since the plaintiff can exercise the right of subrogation for the above right of subrogation of the CC (hereinafter referred to as the "right of subrogation of the CC") on behalf of the plaintiff as the right of subrogation for the right of subrogation for the cancellation of the right of subrogation for the right of subrogation for the right of subrogation for the right of subrogation for the mortgage of this case held against the defendant ParkB by making the right of subrogation for the claim against the CC as the right of subrogation for the right of subrogation for the right of subrogation for the above right of subrogation of the CC.

B. Determination

1) The existence of the preserved claim and whether the existingCC is insolvent

As seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s taxation claims amounting to KRW 505,873,450 against Canada

A. Also, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in Gap evidence Nos. 7 through 11 (including the number of branch numbers in the case of those with separate numbers), ① as of the date of the closing of argument, ○○○○○○○ ○○ ○○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 269mm2. As of the date of the closing of argument, the Plaintiff owned ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 27,269m269m2, a dispute over the sale price of each of the real estate in accordance with the agreement on June 27, 201 between the Defendant 2 and the 206m20m2.

In light of the above facts of recognition, each real estate listed in paragraphs 2 through 11 of the attached Table 2.

The claim of the flagCC due to each of them cannot be calculated as active property of the flagCC because it is difficult to determine the amount of the claim due to a dispute with Defendant ParkB in connection with the current distribution. Ultimately, as of the date of the closing of argument in this case, the flagCC bears the tax liability of KRW 505,873,450 against the Plaintiff as of the date of the closing of argument in this case. On the other hand, the active property is the active property of KRW 7,995,90,000 (the amount equivalent to KRW 262,702,60,000 at the market price of each of the real property in this case and the real property in attached Table 2(1) and each of the real property in this case and the real property in attached Table 2(1). Accordingly, it is deemed that it has the active property exceeding the present date of closing of argument in this case.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s creditor of the CC with a claim for taxation against the CC as a preserved claim.

The right of consolation can be exercised in subrogation.

2) Whether the instant right to collateral security in the name of Defendant Han-A is null and void

A) Since the right to collateral security is for collateral security, in principle, the creditor and the mortgagee of the right to collateral security.

However, in cases where the right to collateral security with a third party as a holder of the right to collateral security is created, if there exists an agreement between the creditor, the debtor, and the third party on such establishment, and if there are special circumstances to deem that claims have been actually reverted to the third party by means of assignment of claims, a contract for a third party, creation of an indivisible claim relationship, etc., the establishment registration of the right to collateral security in the name of the third party shall also be deemed valid (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 99Da48948, Mar. 15, 2001; 2006Da5055, Jan. 11, 2007).

B) The following facts can be acknowledged in full view of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, 4, 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 7 (including each number), and Eul evidence Nos. 3 and the purport of the whole pleadings.

① Defendant Han-A upon request from the flagCC, from April 1998 to November 2001

수차례에 걸쳐 기CC 명의 예금계좌 내지 기CC과 피고 박BB이 함께 운영하던 ▥▥종합건설 주식회사 명의 예금계좌로 금원을 송금해주었다(이하 피고 한AA이 위와 같이 송금해주었던 금원을 '이 사건 피고 한AA 송금 금원'이라 한다).

② On December 22, 2001, Defendant AB had a prompt date of KRW 200,000,000 to Defendant AB.

Now, I have drawn up a loan certificate with the content that he would repay to the defendant Han on the same day, with the content that he would pay 58,000,000 won to the defendant Han by December 30, 201 (hereinafter referred to as "each of the above loan certificates").

3. The first instance court in respect of the case of loan claim filed against Defendant ParkB (AR)

원 2006가합8197호) 및 항소심(서울고등법원 2009나8811호) 재판과정에서 이 사건 피고 한AA 송금 금원은 자신이 피고 한AA으로부터 차용하여 피고 박BB에게 대여한 금원이라고 주장하였고, 이에 대하여 피고 박BB은 이 사건 피고 한AA 송금 금원은 피고 박BB 개인에 대한 대여금이 아니라 ▥▥종합건설 주식회사에 대한 대여금이라고 주장하였다.

④ As the previousCC and Defendant ParkB continued to have filed a five-year lawsuit, determination on the appellate court of the said lawsuit

On June 27, 2011, prior to this ruling, the appellate court drafted the instant agreement dated June 27, 2011, the main content of which is to sell each of the instant real estate and each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2, so as to resolve the dispute between the parties, and to divide the sales proceeds into 50:50 and the remainder of the sales proceeds after deducting the prescribed expenses, etc.

⑤ In the instant agreement dated June 27, 2011, Paragraph 1(a) of Section 1 of the Additional Agreement is “Defendant B”.

The purpose of Paragraph (b) of the above Additional Agreement is to provide that Defendant Han-A, designated by the flagCC, shall set up the instant collateral in order to secure the distribution claim to be distributed to the flagCC by selling each of the instant real property owned by the principal. The foregoing Additional Agreement stipulates that “The instant collateral security becomes effective only within the extent of the amount allocated to the flagCC, as the collateral for the distribution of the share to the flagCC, and that “The date of dual claim with Defendant Han-A promises that it will not be absolute.”

C) The following circumstances that can be known by comprehensively taking into account the purport of the entire arguments in the above facts admitted;

즉 ① 피고 한AA은 당초 기CC의 부탁을 받고 이 사건 피고 한AA 송금 금원을 기CC 명의 예금계좌 내지 기CC과 피고 박BB이 함께 운영하던 ▥▥종합건설 주식회사 명의 예금계좌로 송금해주었는데, 그 후 피고 박BB으로부터 차용금 합계 258,000,000원으로 하는 이 사건 각 차용증을 교부받았는바, 피고 한AA으로서는 기CC과 피고 박BB 모두에 대하여 금원 대여자의 지위에 있는 것으로 보이는 점, ② 이 사건 피고 한AA 송금 금원의 최종적인 차용인이 피고 박BB 개인인지 아니면 기CC과 피고 박BB이 함께 운영하였던 ▥▥종합건설 주식회사인지에 대하여는 기CC과 피고 박BB 사이의 소송과정에서 다투어 졌는데, 기CC과 피고 박BB은 위 소송에서의 법원의 판단과는 상관없이 당사자들 사이의 분쟁을 해결하기 위하여 이 사건 2011. 6. 27.자 합의서를 작성하면서 피고 박BB은 본인 소유의 이 사건 각 부동산을 매각하여 기CC에게 분배해주어야 할 분배금 채권을 담보하기 위하여 기CC이 지정한 피고 한AA에게 이 사건 근저당권을 설정해주기로 약정하였던 점, ③ 이 사건 2011. 6. 27.자 합의서 중 추가합의서 제1의 나항은 피고 박BB이 이 사건 근저당권에 의하여 담보되는 분배금 채권을 기CC이나 피고 한AA 누구에게라도 변제하면 기CC은 더 이상 이 사건 피고 한AA 송금 금원에 대하여 피고 박BB에게 청구를 하지 않고, 피고 한AA 역시 피고 박BB 개인에게 대여하였다고 주장하는 금원 중 위와 같이 변제된 분배금에 해당하는 금원만큼은 더 이상 피고 박BB에게 청구하지 않기로 하는 의미에서 기재된 것으로 보이는 점 등에 비추어 보면, 이 사건 근저당권은 비록 기CC의 피고

In order to secure the claim for distribution against ParkB, however, there was an agreement between the formerCC, Defendant ParkB, and Defendant Han-B with respect to the establishment of the holder of the instant collective security right as Defendant Han-B. In light of the relationship between the formerCC, Defendant ParkB, and Defendant Han-AA, and the circumstances surrounding the establishment of the instant collective security right, etc., the instant collective security right in the name of Defendant Han-B may be deemed valid for the distribution arising from the sale of each of the instant real property from Defendant ParkB, and Defendant ParkB may be deemed as having an indivisible relationship between the formerCC and the Defendant Han-A-A-A-A-, namely, the relationship with which the formerCC and the latter can be fully repaid. Therefore, the instant collective security right in the name of Defendant Han-B-B is deemed valid.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the instant collateral security in the name of Defendant Han-A is valid, and the title of Defendant Han-A is valid.

As long as the right to collateral security of this case is effective, the plaintiff's claim for cancellation of the right to collateral security of this case against defendant Han-B does not exist. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for this part is without merit.

3. Determination on the part of the claim for the establishment registration of neighboring mortgage

The Plaintiff asserts thatCC’s exercise of the right to claim the establishment of a mortgage on each of the instant real estate held by Defendant ParkB against Defendant ParkB by making the tax claim against the saidCC as the preserved claim, and sought against Defendant ParkB the implementation of the registration procedure for the establishment of a mortgage on each of the instant real estate based on an agreement dated June 27, 2011.

ParkB-B’s establishment registration of the instant collateral security in accordance with the agreement with KoreaA and CC

A. As seen earlier, inasmuch as the instant mortgage under Defendant HanA’s name is valid, it cannot be deemed that the previousCC had the right to seek registration of establishment of a mortgage under its name with respect to each of the instant real estate in accordance with the agreement on June 27, 2011. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim for this part of this case constitutes a case where there is no right of subrogation in exercising the right of subrogation.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, each of the claims against the Defendants against the Plaintiff is without merit, and all of them are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.