1. As to the real estate stated in the attached list to the Plaintiff, Defendant B, including the Daegu District Court Ansan-dong Branch, etc. on November 2001.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 5, 201, with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant real estate”), the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter “registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage”) with the value of KRW 35 million, which was received on November 6, 2001, as the grounds of the agreement to establish a mortgage, including the support of the Daegu District Court, the Daegu District Court, on November 6, 2001, set the secured claim as the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter “mortgage”) with respect to the real estate as indicated in the separate sheet attached to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

B. On June 9, 2015, the Defendant Credit Guarantee Fund attached the instant claim on the collateral security right to Defendant B on the ground of the existence of the claim against Defendant B, and completed the supplementary registration with the receipt of No. 21386, Jun. 12, 2015, such as the Daegu District Court’s Ansan-dong Branch, etc., and completed the supplementary registration with the receipt of the instant claim on August 20, 2015, including the Daegu District Court’s Ansan-dong Branch Branch, etc.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the instant mortgage claim was fully repaid from around April 22, 2015 to around April 22, 2015.

As such, Defendant B is obligated to implement the procedure for cancellation registration of the registration of the establishment of the instant mortgage on April 22, 2015, since the instant mortgage claim had already ceased to exist, and as such, provisional seizure and seizure of the instant mortgage claim already extinguished are all null and void, the Defendant Credit Guarantee Fund is obligated to express its consent on the registration of cancellation.

B. Since it cannot be deemed that Defendant Credit Guarantee Fund’s claim was repaid, it cannot accept the Plaintiff’s claim.

3. There is no dispute as to the above plaintiff's assertion between the plaintiff and the defendant B.

Thus, Defendant B is obligated to implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the mortgage of this case to the Plaintiff.

4. Defendant.