1. The part of the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Korea Technology Finance Corporation for consent to the cancellation of provisional seizure decision and entry registration.

1. The description of the claim is as shown in Appendix 2 of the Claim.

2. Article 208 (3) 2 of the Civil Procedure Act (in a case where the applicable provisions of Acts are deemed to exist);

3. Some dismissed parts of the Plaintiff is seeking consent from the Defendant Fund to cancel the decision of provisional seizure or entry registration.

On November 22, 191, Article 57 (1) of the Registration of Real Estate Act provides that "if there is a third party who has an interest in the registration in the cancellation of the registration, consent shall be obtained from the third party." Article 57 (2) of the same Act provides that "if the registration is cancelled pursuant to paragraph (1), the registration in the name of the third party who has an interest in the registration shall be cancelled ex officio by the registrar." In full view of the purport of the argument in subparagraph 1 of the same Article, the plaintiff completed the provisional seizure registration of this case to the defendant B on November 22, 1991 as the Busan District Court's Busan District Court's Busan District Court's registration office No. 3802, Nov. 22, 1991 (hereinafter "the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage of this case"), the defendant Fund shall not be deemed to have obtained a provisional seizure order from the Busan District Court's Busan District Court's 201Kadan486, Jan. 24, 2011>

Therefore, the part of the plaintiff's motion for cancellation of provisional attachment decision and entry registration against the defendant's funds is unlawful and dismissed.