1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

With respect to each real estate listed in the attached Table 1, paragraph (1) shall apply to the Plaintiff.

Basic Facts

This part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (1. of the grounds). Thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article

Judgment

The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 500 million from Defendant B on February 12, 2016 and set up the instant mortgage as a collateral, and the secured debt of the instant right to collateral was limited to KRW 500 million. On February 19, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 700 million, including the previous borrowed money, to Defendant B, and the said loan was fully repaid and the secured debt of the instant right to collateral was fully extinguished.

Even if the Plaintiff’s 1.32 billion won borrowed from Defendant B from January 15, 2016 to February 26, 2016 all were included in the secured debt of the instant mortgage, since the Plaintiff fully repaid the loan, all of the secured debt of the instant mortgage became extinct.

Therefore, Defendant B is obligated to cancel the registration of the establishment of the mortgage of this case to the Plaintiff, and Defendant C et al. selectively register the additional registration of the transfer of each right to collateral security (hereinafter “the additional registration of the transfer of the instant right to collateral security”).

(2) The obligation to cancel the registration of creation of a mortgage of this case is to cancel or cancel the registration.

The summary of Defendant B’s assertion is that the Plaintiff entered into the instant collective housing construction contract with Defendant B, and received KRW 345 million for the construction cost, and did not perform the construction work after having received KRW 300 million for the construction cost after having entered into the instant access road construction contract with I. The Plaintiff did not properly perform the construction work. The total amount of KRW 645 million for Defendant B and I’s claim for the return of the construction cost and KRW 1.32 billion for Defendant B constituted the secured obligation of the instant collective security. Since the Plaintiff paid KRW 1.32 billion for the loans to Defendant B, the secured obligation of the instant collective security was not extinguished.