The judgment below

The part concerning the request for cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the neighboring mortgage is reversed, and this part of the case is applied.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

After recognizing the facts as indicated in its reasoning based on its adopted evidence, the court below determined that D, a joint guarantor, extinguished the loan obligation of this case with the validity of the attachment and assignment order of this case, had the same result as D, a principal debtor E, repaid the loan obligation of this case to the Defendant, and thus, D, under Article 481 of the Civil Act, subrogated the Defendant as a person with legitimate interest in repayment, and thus, D, under Article 482 of the Civil Act, was able to exercise the right to collateral security based on the registration of establishment of a new collective security (right to collateral security) of this case against the Plaintiff as the founder of a new collective security (right to collateral security) to the extent that it can be claimed by its own right pursuant to Article 482 of the Civil Act, while recognizing D as 10,946,970 won and its delay damages.

Therefore, among the judgment below, the part on the claim for cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage cannot be maintained any longer because it falls under “when the reason for judgment is not clarified or contradictory to the reason” under Article 424(1)6 of the Civil

The ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the part of the judgment below concerning the claim for cancellation of the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent