1. The defendant is the Daejeon District Court with respect to the plaintiff with respect to the land of 5745 square meters and D forest land of 1547 square meters in Nam-gu, Dong-gu, Dong-gu, Seoul.

1. Basic facts

A. On January 29, 2018, the Plaintiff completed the registration of the establishment of a neighboring forest with a maximum debt amount of KRW 39,00,000,00 with respect to the 5745 square meters and D forest land owned by the Plaintiff to the Defendant on January 29, 2018, as to the 5745 square meters and D forest owned by the Plaintiff.

[Reasons for Recognition: Descriptions in Evidence A Nos. 1 and 2]

2. The plaintiff's assertion that the right to collateral security in this case is null and void since the defendant's loan claims against the plaintiff as the secured claim did not exist. Thus, the defendant asserts that the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for cancelling the registration of cancelling the establishment of the right to collateral security in this case, and the defendant asserts that the plaintiff's employee paid 39,000,000 won to the non-party E, who is the general manager of the right to collateral security in this case, as the right to collateral security in this case

3. Determination

A. The presumption power in the registration of the establishment of a collateral is presumed to be the registered titleholder, or it is presumed that the registered titleholder legally acquired the right to collateral or duly completed the registration in accordance with the contract to establish a collateral, which is the grounds for the registration, by satisfying the effective requirements, and it is not presumed that the establishment or existence of the right to collateral secured by the right to collateral

In other words, since the right to collateral security is established for the purpose of securing a certain range of unspecified claims arising from a continuous business relationship at the end of the settlement term for the future, there must be a legal act establishing the secured claim of the right to collateral security separately from the act of establishing the right to collateral security, and the burden of proving whether there was a legal act establishing the secured claim of the right to collateral security at the time of the establishment of the right

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da107408, Apr. 28, 2011). B.

In light of the above legal principles, according to the health unit, Eul evidence No. 1, the defendant was named as E on January 29, 2018 and January 31, 2018.