1. The Defendant received on June 18, 201 from the Incheon District Court North Incheon District Court registry office with respect to the real estate stated in the attached Form from the Plaintiff.

1. According to the evidence evidence No. 2, on June 18, 2013, the fact that the registration of creation of the right to collateral security (hereinafter referred to as the “right to collateral security”) against the real estate owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant real estate”) was completed on June 18, 2013 by the maximum debt amount of KRW 100 million, the obligor, and the mortgagee as the Defendant of the right to collateral security (hereinafter

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the instant real estate was offered to C by arranging and requesting the bond of KRW 75 million as collateral and offered to C, and thus, documents necessary for the establishment of the right to collateral security were prepared. The Defendant did not lend money to the Plaintiff and set up the instant right to collateral security without making a loan to the Plaintiff.

The right to collateral security of this case is void because there is no secured obligation.

B. The defendant's assertion is that C was set up the instant right to collateral security against the contractual deposit obligation of KRW 80 million borne by C to the defendant, and thus the plaintiff's claim cannot be complied with.

3. The physical guarantee is an act of establishing a security right on behalf of a person who is not the debtor. On the other hand, the mortgage is a mortgage which only sets the maximum amount of the debt to be secured, and reserving the confirmation of the debt in the future (Article 357(1) of the Civil Act). Since it is a security right established for the purpose of securing a certain limit from a settlement term for the future, there must be a legal act establishing a security right on behalf of a person who is not the debtor. The burden of proof as to whether there was a legal act establishing a security right on behalf of a person who is not the debtor at the time of establishment of the right to collateral.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da72070, Dec. 24, 2009). In full view of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 6, and Eul evidence Nos. 2, 9, and 10, C received a request from the plaintiff for the delivery of a self-financial copy and the instant real estate.