1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff, along with D, shared the land E- 134213 square meters of forest land in Gwangju-si (hereinafter “instant land before division”). However, on April 30, 2013, the Plaintiff divided the said forest land into E- 26592 square meters of forest land and C 107621 square meters of forest land and C 107621 square meters in accordance with the joint-use agreement on February 14, 2013, and became a sole owner after completing the registration of transfer of the entire co-owner’s share ownership under Article 33764 of the Gwangju District Court’s receipt of Gwangju District Court’s registration office with respect to the said C forest land (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. On September 13, 2007, the Defendant completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter “registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage of this case”) with respect to D’s shares (1820/136) out of the instant land before subdivision, 200 million won with respect to the maximum debt amount, and the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage of the debtor D (hereinafter “registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage of this case”). The registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage was transferred as

[Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry in Gap evidence 1 through 6 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff did not assume the obligation of D, and that there is no obligation between the Defendant and the Defendant, and therefore there is no reason to provide the instant land as security for the obligation of D.

The registration of the establishment of a new mortgage in the instant case should be cancelled since the existence of the secured debt from the beginning or the extinctive prescription of the secured debt has expired.

B. (1) The security right, such as the right to collateral security established on the shares of Party A among the joint real estate owned by Party A and B, shall continue to exist on the whole co-owned property according to the previous shares ratio, and shall not be naturally concentrated on the part divided in the future Party A, the person who created the right to collateral security, unless

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 88Meu24868, Aug. 8, 1989). With respect to the instant case, health unit and the remaining co-owners at the time of division of common property by the Plaintiff.