1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On November 7, 2000, the Plaintiff completed the registration of creation of each of the instant collateral security (hereinafter “registration of creation of each of the instant real estates”) or each of the instant collateral security (hereinafter “each of the instant collateral security”) on November 3, 200 with respect to each of the instant real estates listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant real estates”) to the Defendant, who is the Plaintiff’s birth, on November 7, 200.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. On November 7, 2000, the Plaintiff asserted that the establishment registration of each of the instant real estate was completed to the Defendant on the following grounds: (a) on November 7, 2000, the Plaintiff did not have any obligation or obligation with the Defendant to evade compulsory execution from the creditors.

Therefore, the establishment registration of the mortgage of this case, which is null and void due to the absence of a legal act which establishes the secured claim of the right to collateral security, should be cancelled.

B. The judgment of the court below is a mortgage established by settling only the maximum amount of the debt to be secured, and reserving the determination of the debt in the future. Since it is a security established for securing a certain limit in a settlement term for the future a number of unspecified claims arising from a continuous transaction, there must be a legal act establishing a secured claim of the right to collateral separate from the act of establishing the right to collateral, and the burden of proving whether there was a legal act establishing a secured claim of the right to collateral at the time of the establishment of the right to collateral security exists

(Supreme Court Decision 2009Da72070 Decided December 24, 2009, and Supreme Court Decision 2010Da107408 Decided April 28, 201). However, the Plaintiff did not seek cancellation of the establishment registration of each of the instant neighboring areas to the Defendant until 18 years have elapsed since the establishment registration of each of the instant neighboring areas was completed, and the Plaintiff did not seek cancellation of the establishment registration of each of the instant neighboring areas to the Defendant, and ② KRW 2.5 million from the Defendant.