1. The Defendants are the government local courts with respect to the Plaintiff’s share of 1/2 of the area of 692 square meters of Goyang-gu D forest land in Gyeyang-gu, Gyeyang-gu.

1. The following facts can be acknowledged in full view of the whole purport of the pleadings in each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 8, 19, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 5.

On February 7, 2007, the Plaintiff completed the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter “registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage of this case”) of KRW 80 million with respect to the said share, the Plaintiff was a 1/2 equity interest holder of the real estate as stated in paragraph (1) of this Article.

B. On June 8, 2007, Defendant B, the creditor of the instant right to collateral security, received the decision of provisional seizure of claim No. 2007Kadan4767, and the decision of provisional seizure of claim No. 2015Kadan2320, Jun. 17, 2015, Defendant B, upon receipt of the decision of provisional seizure of claim No. 2015Kadan2320, respectively, filed an additional registration of provisional seizure of the right to collateral security (hereinafter “mortgage”) against KRW 37,643,835, respectively.

C. On June 16, 2015, Defendant C, another creditor of this case, obtained a decision of provisional seizure of claims No. 2015Kadan2308 from this Court on June 16, 2015, and completed a supplementary registration of provisional seizure of claims against KRW 50 million among the claims secured by the instant right to collateral security.

The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against E by asserting that E had completed the establishment registration of the instant neighboring establishment at the request of E in order to show F that E had the capacity to repay KRW 80,000,000 from F, and in this case, E accepted the Plaintiff’s claim on October 15, 2015.

2. Judgment on the parties' arguments

A. The judgment on the cause of the Plaintiff’s claim is based on the following: (a) the Plaintiff sought consent from the Defendants, the third party interested in the registration of the establishment of a mortgage in the instant case, against the cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a mortgage in the instant case; (b) thus, only the maximum amount of the debt to be secured, and (c) the mortgage created by reserving the confirmation of the debt in the future (Article 357(1) of the Civil