The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The court below held as follows: (a) at the time of entering into the instant mortgage agreement between the debtor, (i) the debtor, (ii) the debtor, (iii) the debtor, and G (hereinafter referred to as the "G"), the representative director, it appears that there was no obligation required to be secured by the instant right to collateral security other than the goods payment obligation under a contract under which the debtor would continuously supply the products, such as pipes and materials, to G (hereinafter referred to as the "supply contract of this case"), and (ii) at the time of the instant right to collateral security agreement including any existing or future obligation to the debtor; (iii) at the time of the instant right to collateral security agreement, G did not bear any existing obligation to the debtor; and (iv) it appears that there was no continuous transaction relationship other than the instant supply contract, including the bill supply contract of this case, which was issued or suspended from May 2006 to October 31, 201, which was the time when the instant right to collateral security agreement was established.