1. The Defendant: (a) on July 1, 1991, the Daegu District Court did not register the Plaintiff with regard to the Daegu District Court’s 3,659 square meters and D 235 square meters.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 19, 191, E Co., Ltd., which was the representative director of the company, concluded a shop sale contract with the content that the building 1 and 2 of the building to be newly built to the Defendant is sold to the Defendant in the amount of 4.82 billion won on the old-si, Seoul Special Metropolitan City and D 235 square meters (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant land”).

(hereinafter “instant sales contract”). B.

On July 23, 1991, the Plaintiff jointly and severally guaranteed all obligations owed by E to the Defendant under the instant sales contract, and concluded a mortgage contract with the obligor E and the maximum debt amount of KRW 5.38.6 billion with respect to the instant land, and concluded a mortgage contract with the obligor E and the maximum debt amount of KRW 5.38.6 million, and had the Defendant registered the establishment of a collateral in the

(hereinafter referred to as “the instant collateral security” or “the establishment registration of the instant collateral security”).

According to the instant sales contract, the Defendant paid the down payment of KRW 1.26.5 billion to E, the intermediate payment of KRW 3.136 billion, the intermediate payment of KRW 4.34 billion, and KRW 4.34 billion.

On April 8, 1998, the Defendant applied for voluntary auction on the instant land based on the right to collateral security.

The Daegu District Court Kimcheon Branch rendered a decision to commence auction on April 13, 1998, and on April 15, 1998, the decision to commence auction was registered on the land of this case. The defendant withdrawn the voluntary auction application on February 25, 1999.

(F) The fact that there is no dispute on the basis of [the grounds for recognition], each entry in Gap evidence 1 through 4 (including all of them), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. Since the registration of establishment of a new mortgage of the Plaintiff’s instant case did not exist as follows, the Defendant should cancel the registration.

1. The instant mortgage contract provides that the secured obligation shall be “debted with respect to credit transactions” to which the Plaintiff bears the secured obligation. However, E Co., Ltd. shall be liable for credit transactions to the Defendant.