If there is no secured claim of the right to collateral security, the seizure order will be null and void.

Since there is no sufficient proof that there was a legal act establishing the secured claim of the right to collateral security, there is no secured claim. Therefore, seizure of the Defendant’s claim of the right to collateral security in the Republic of Korea is null and void. The Defendant Republic of Korea, a third party who has interest in the registration, has a duty to express his/her consent to the Plaintiff

Article 357 of the Civil Act: Collateral security

2015da51642 Implementation of the procedure for registration of cancellation of collateral security, etc.

Park Jong-seop

Republic of Korea and 1

June 29, 2016

July 13, 2016

1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant ○○ Infrastructurenet Co., Ltd. implements the procedure for registration of cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage completed on February 3, 2010 by the Gwangju District Court’s registry No. 17032, Feb. 3, 2010;

B. The defendant Republic of Korea has expressed his/her intention to accept the registration of cancellation on real estate listed in the separate sheet.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants.

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of premise;

A. On February 2, 2010, the Plaintiff concluded a mortgage contract between Defendant ○○ Infrastructurenet Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant ○○ Infrastructurenet”) with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant real estate”) as the maximum debt amount of KRW 50,000,000, and the debtor, the Plaintiff, and the mortgagee of the right to collateral security as the Defendant ○ Infrastructurenet, and completed the registration of the establishment of a collateral on February 3, 2010 to Defendant ○○ Infrastructurenet Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant ○○ Infrastructurenet”).

B. As Defendant ○○ Infrastructurenet was in arrears with national taxes of KRW 577,179,810 as of August 4, 2015, Defendant Republic of Korea attached Defendant ○○ Infrastructurenet’s claim against the Plaintiff on the ground of delinquency in national taxes on August 4, 2015, and the attachment was notified to the Plaintiff on August 12, 2015, and on August 10, 2015, the attachment registration was entered in the method of additional registration in the registration of the establishment of a new mortgage on the foregoing neighboring mortgage on August 10, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Eul 1 to 3 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

The Plaintiff entered into a mortgage contract with Defendant ○○ Infrastructurenet and registered the establishment of a mortgage.

Although the secured debt did not exist, it is argued that the repayment deposit was made to the Defendant ○○ Infrastructurenet on November 18, 2015, and that the secured debt was extinguished by mixing the Defendant’s execution deposit with the Defendant’s execution deposit, and that the secured debt was extinguished by the Defendant’s execution deposit. Defendant ○○ Infrastructurenet requested Defendant ○○ Infrastructurenet to make the cancellation registration of the establishment registration and the consent to the cancellation registration with respect to the Defendant’s Republic of Korea.

As to this, Defendant Republic of Korea asserts that there exists an amount equivalent to 50,000,000 won of the secured obligation against Defendant ○○ Infrastructurenet, and that unless so, the mortgage agreement constitutes a false conspiracy, and thus null and void, or that Defendant Republic of Korea constitutes a bona fide third person who has a new legal interest based on a false conspiracy, and thus, the invalidity of the mortgage agreement cannot be asserted against Defendant Republic of Korea. Furthermore, the Plaintiff’s mixed deposit is not valid because it does not meet the requirements, and the secured obligation was not deposited in full.

3. Claim against Defendant ○○ Infrastructurenet

Defendant ○○ Infrastructurenet is merely a formal establishment of a collateral between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, and it is a person who does not have any actual secured claim against the Plaintiff.

○○ Infrastructurenet is obligated to implement the registration procedure for cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage to the Plaintiff.

4. Claim against Defendant Republic of Korea

A mortgage is a mortgage created by setting only the maximum amount of a debt to be secured and reserving the determination of a debt in the future. Since it is established with the purpose of securing a certain limit from a settlement term for the future, there must be a legal act establishing a secured claim of the right to collateral separately from the act of establishing the right to collateral, and the burden of proving whether there was a legal act establishing a secured claim of the right to collateral at the time of the establishment of the right to collateral (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da72070, Dec. 24, 2009).

Meanwhile, in cases where a claim bearing a right to collateral security is seized, the purpose of registering the seizure of the right to collateral security by means of additional registration in the establishment registration of the right to collateral security is to publicly announce the seizure of the right to collateral security as the seizure of the right to collateral security, which is a subordinate right by the incidental nature of the right to collateral security, is to protect the seizure of the right to collateral security. If there is no secured claim of the right to collateral security, the seizure order shall be null and void (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Da7041, May 28, 2

According to the evidence evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as well as the overall purport of the pleadings, when Defendant ○○ Infrastructurenet asked Defendant ○○○○○○ to file a complaint against the Plaintiff’s her hypt, which was conducting a joint business, for fraud, the Plaintiff appears to have set up a mortgage once it requested Defendant ○○ Infrastructurenet to withdraw the complaint. Upon the commencement of an auction upon the application for voluntary auction by the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund that seized the claim on the collateral security, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 50,000,000 on November 18, 2015. However, in light of the fact that Defendant ○ Infrastructurenet, who was the mortgagee, did not have any secured claim on the collateral security, solely on the grounds that the circumstance of setting up the right to collateral security or the Plaintiff deposited the maximum debt amount, it is not sufficient to prove that there was a legal act establishing the secured claim on the collateral security separate from the contract on the

Since the secured claim of the right to collateral security does not exist, the seizure of the defendant's right to collateral security is null and void. The defendant, the third party interested in the registration, has the obligation to the plaintiff to express his/her consent to the cancellation of the registration of the establishment of collateral security.

5. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim of this case is justified.