1. As to the motor vehicles indicated in the attached list to the Plaintiff, the Defendant shall set the supplementary number No. 47 of the received on January 30, 2009 by Yangyang-gun.

In full view of each of the statements and arguments set forth in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the automobile listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter "automobile of this case") is owned by the plaintiff, and the mortgage creation registration in the name of Hyundai Capital Co., Ltd. with the bond value of KRW 16,200,000 on Jan. 30, 2009 has been completed, and the registration of mortgage creation in the name of the defendant (hereinafter "registration of mortgage creation of this case") with the bond value of KRW 16,20,000 on the same day can be acknowledged.

In this case, the Plaintiff asserted that the registration of the creation of mortgage in the name of the Defendant should be cancelled by nullifying the cause, and the Defendant paid KRW 4,000,000 to D, who is the Plaintiff’s partner, in order to purchase the instant vehicle, and paid KRW 7,50,000 to pay 10% of the car registration and the acquisition price, so the creation of mortgage of this case was completed in order to secure this.

On the other hand, a mortgage must have a legal act establishing the secured claim of a mortgage separately from the act of mortgage, and the burden of proof as to whether there was a legal act establishing the secured claim of a mortgage at the time of the establishment of a mortgage is on the part of claiming its existence.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da107408, Apr. 28, 2011; Supreme Court Decision 2009Da72070, Dec. 24, 2009). Since there is no evidence to acknowledge the Defendant’s assertion that the secured claim of this case exists, the Defendant is obligated to cancel the registration of mortgage of this case.

If so, the plaintiff's claim is accepted on the ground of the reason.