1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. According to the purport of the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as well as the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff is the owner of the instant forest. On August 7, 1991, the Defendant may recognize the completion of the registration of creation of the right to collateral security (hereinafter “mortgage”).

2. The plaintiff asserted that the registration of the establishment of the creation of a neighboring forest in the name of the defendant without any secured debt, which was proposed by C to exchange the forest in the instant case with another land owned by C from C, and that the registration of the establishment of a neighboring forest in the instant case should be cancelled as the cause invalidation.

The defendant asserts that there is a supply of timber to C, and the mortgage of this case was established in order to secure the above timber payment obligation of C.

3. In light of the determination, a mortgage is a mortgage created by setting only the maximum amount of the debt to be secured and reserving the determination of an obligation in the future (Article 357(1) of the Civil Act), and a security right established to secure a certain limit in a settlement term for the future against multiple unspecified claims arising from a continuous business relationship. Thus, separate from the act of establishing a mortgage, there must be a legal act establishing a secured claim of the mortgage, and the burden of proof as to whether there was a legal act establishing a secured claim of the mortgage at the time of the establishment of the mortgage is on the part of asserting its existence.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da72070 Decided December 24, 2009). Therefore, the Defendant should prove the existence of a timber payment obligation against C, which is alleged as a collateral obligation of the instant right to collateral security, but there is no evidence to acknowledge the said secured obligation.

Ultimately, the right to collateral security of this case should be cancelled as a cause invalidation because there is no secured obligation.

Even the defendant's claim for the price of goods is a claim.