1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The plaintiff of this case is a social welfare foundation established for the operation of social welfare centers, welfare programs for the elderly, etc., and operates the Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government General Social Welfare Center at the location of 112-1, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul.

The Plaintiff, a fundamental property, was incorporated into a site for a neighboring park development project and filed on January 22, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for a permit to dispose of the basic property for the said forest, as well as the basic property on January 22, 2015.

On February 16, 2015, the Defendant: (a) granted the Plaintiff permission to dispose of the basic property of the forests and fields; and (b) attached additional clauses that “The Defendant shall keep the land compensation as the passbook for a fixed deposit; and (c) on the condition that the right of pledge shall be established to be withdrawn only when the permission to dispose of the basic property of Seoul

(2) The Plaintiff’s assertion as to whether the above condition regarding the establishment of the right of pledge was legitimate or abused for the following reasons, and the defect is so serious and obvious that the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the father of this case is invalid. The Plaintiff’s assertion as to whether the above condition as to the establishment of the right of pledge was without dispute (which is the ground for recognition).

The pledge right to set up a pledge which cannot be performed (Civil Code Chapter 8) must be secured by the secured claim in order to establish and maintain the pledge right as a security right. However, the right of supervision over public law relations with the defendant against the plaintiff cannot be the secured claim.

Therefore, the instant subsidiary officer ordered the Plaintiff to establish an invalid pledge due to the lack of the secured claim, and thus, it is impossible to perform the pledge.

It was true that in the past, the plaintiff used to purchase other real estate without the defendant's permission, which was derived from excessive measures focused on administrative convenience, but this was derived from the failure of the plaintiff's representative to work, which was only one time, and the defendant's land compensation.