1. The part of the plaintiff's claim for cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage in the lawsuit against the defendant F&M et al.

1. If the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage was cancelled on the ground of sale in the auction procedure while the lawsuit seeking the execution of the procedure for the cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage regarding the part of the claim for cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage in the lawsuit against the plaintiff's registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage against the F&M et al. (hereinafter "the plaintiff's registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage"), there is no legal

In full view of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 10 and 11, the registration of creation of a mortgage in the claim filed by the plaintiff against the defendant F&M et al. for the implementation of the procedure for registration of cancellation may be recognized as the cancellation of the registration on October 22, 2014, where the lawsuit in this case is pending, due to the sale at the auction procedure.

Thus, the plaintiff has no legal interest in seeking cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the above neighboring mortgage.

Therefore, this part of the lawsuit is dismissed as it is illegal as there is no benefit of lawsuit.

2. The judgment on the plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant A corporation (hereinafter "the defendant A"), B, and Samchim Plant Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "the defendant Samchim Plant") and the part on the claim for cancellation of the contract to establish a mortgage among the lawsuits against the defendant Samchimtech

A. (1) On January 22, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a credit guarantee agreement (hereinafter “instant credit guarantee agreement”) with Defendant A with the Korea Cmat Bank, the credit guarantee limit of KRW 95 million, and the guarantee period from January 22, 2013 to January 21, 2014. Defendant B jointly and severally guaranteed all obligations owed by Defendant A to the Plaintiff pursuant to the said agreement.

According to the instant credit guarantee agreement, when the Plaintiff fulfilled the guaranteed obligation, the Defendant A reimburses the Plaintiff for the amount of performance of the guaranteed obligation and the expenses incurred in preserving the rights acquired by the Plaintiff, and where delay is made, according to the ratio determined by the Plaintiff.