1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. With respect to the instant real estate owned by B, the establishment registration of the instant real estate was completed on July 8, 1998, based on the “contract to establish a contract on July 7, 1998,” which is the debtor B, the mortgagee, the defendant of the right to collateral security, the maximum debt amount of KRW 20,000,000.

B. B entered into an installment financing agreement with EL Card Co., Ltd., Korea Card Co., Ltd., and National Card Co., Ltd., and borrowed money, and did not refund the principal and interest. However, on May 13, 2005, the said financial institutions transferred the Plaintiff’s claim against B against the said financial institution.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The secured claim of the instant right to collateral security does not exist from the beginning.

B. Even if the secured debt of this case was established, the secured debt of this case was established.

Even if there are more than 10 years from July 8, 1998, which is the date of establishment, the extinctive prescription has expired.

C. Therefore, the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage of the instant case must be cancelled.

The plaintiff, as a creditor against B, seeks the cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the neighboring mortgage of this case by subrogation of B.

3. Determination

A. Legal doctrine is a mortgage established by setting only the maximum amount of the debt to be secured and reserving the determination of the debt in the future (Article 357(1) of the Civil Act). Since it is a security right established to secure a certain amount of unspecified claims arising from a continuous transaction relationship in the future, there must be a legal act establishing a secured claim of the right to collateral separate from the act of establishing the right to collateral, and the burden of proof as to whether there was a legal act establishing the secured claim of the right to collateral at the time of the establishment of the right to collateral security has been asserted its existence.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da72070 Decided December 24, 2009, etc.). B.

As to the assertion of non-existence of the secured claim, this article 1 to 1.