Korea, a third party, has no obligation to accept the registration of cancellation of the mortgage registration of this case.

Since there is no ground to acknowledge that the Plaintiff paid the full amount of the loan, which is the secured debt of the instant mortgage contract, the Republic of Korea has no duty to accept the registration of cancellation of the instant mortgage contract.

Article 53 of the National Tax Collection Act

Gwangju District Court's Netcheon-2015-Ban-16020 (04.07)

Hyo

Republic of Korea and 2

2016.02.25

2016.04.07

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

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Cheong-gu Office

The Plaintiff, Defendant New △△△, on the ○○○○, ○○○, ○○○, 1164-4, 135 square meters prior to ○○○○, ○○○, ○○○○, ○○○, and ○○, which completed the registration procedure for cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage, completed by No. 22597 on November 23, 2006, and Defendant ○, ○○, and the Republic of Korea expressed their intent to accept the cancellation of the registration of

1. Basic facts

A. On November 2006, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 40 million from Defendant New △△△△△△, and as a security, completed the registration of establishment of mortgage over the maximum debt amount of KRW 50 million as the receipt of 22597 on November 23, 2006, with respect to KRW 1164-4,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 won

B. On April 4, 2008, Defendant ○○ City, a creditor of Defendant New △△△△, seized the instant right to collateral security, and completed the supplementary registration on April 7, 2008.

C. On July 29, 2015, Defendant Republic of Korea, a creditor of Defendant New △△△△, seized the instant collateral security claims, and completed the supplementary registration on July 30, 2015.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, the overall purport of the pleadings (Service by public notice in respect of Defendant New △△△△)

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserts that Defendant New △△△△ was obligated under the substantive law to accept the cancellation registration of the instant mortgage registration as a third party who is an interested party with respect to the instant claim for the right to collateral security, on the ground that: (a) the Plaintiff paid KRW 10 million to Defendant New △△△△△ on March 20, 2007; and (b) paid KRW 10 million in installments over ten times from March 28, 2007 to March 28, 2008; and (c) fully repaid the secured obligation of the instant mortgage contract; and (d) the establishment registration of the instant right to collateral security should be cancelled due to the extinguishment of the secured obligation; and (e) Defendant ○ City, a seizure creditor with respect to the instant claim for the right to collateral security; and (e) Korea, as a third party

According to Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 3, the plaintiff borrowed 30 million won from ○ on March 20, 2007 to ○○○○, and the plaintiff has transferred △△△△△△ for five times each month from March 28, 2008 to August 28, 2007. However, it is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff paid △△△△△△△ KRW 40 million to △△△△△△△△△△, a secured obligation under the mortgage-backed contract in this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.