1. The defendant shall receive on April 6, 1998 from the plaintiff the Changwon District Court's Busan District Court's registry office with respect to the size of 164m2 in Gyeongnam-gun, Busan District Court B.

1. On March 8, 1995, C owned the instant land and died on July 2, 2005, after completing the registration of ownership preservation with respect to the land B, 164 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

On December 29, 2014, the Plaintiff, as a child C, completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant land due to inheritance by consultation and division on July 2, 2005.

On the other hand, on April 6, 1998, the Defendant completed the registration of establishment of a mortgage over the instant land, the maximum debt amount of KRW 7.33,00,000, and the debtor C (hereinafter “registration of establishment of a mortgage over the instant land”).

[Ground of recognition] The entry of Gap evidence No. 2 and the purport of the whole argument

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion C completed the registration of creation of a mortgage on the root of the instant case in order to secure the gas payment obligation supplied by the Defendant.

However, there is no gas payment obligation against the defendant in C, and even if not, the gas payment obligation was extinguished by prescription in July 2010 after five years from the due date of payment.

Therefore, the defendant should implement the procedure for cancellation registration of the registration of the establishment of the neighboring mortgage of this case to the plaintiff.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that there was a gas price liability against the Defendant, and C cannot be deemed to have fully repaid this. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim cannot be complied with.

3. At the time of establishment of the right to collateral security, the burden of proof as to whether there was a legal act establishing the right to collateral security has been asserted to the defendant.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da72070 Decided December 24, 2009). However, there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant’s claim for gas price against C, which is the secured claim for the establishment registration of the creation of the neighboring mortgage of the instant case, has been made.

Therefore, since the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage of this case is null and void, the defendant must implement the registration procedure for cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage of this case

4. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable.