1. The Plaintiff:

A. On April 27, 1991, Defendant B shall provide Daejeon District Court Branch for the real estate stated in the attached list.

1. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B

A. As to the real estate indicated in the attached list owned by the Plaintiff as indicated in the claim, the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter “registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage”) was completed on April 27, 1991 with the Plaintiff as the mortgagee B, the maximum debt amount of KRW 50,000,000, and the Plaintiff as the debtor. The registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter “registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage”) was filed on the ground that the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage was invalidated on the premise that the secured debt of the neighboring mortgage of this case was extinguished by prescription.

Article 208(3)2 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that a judgment of confession shall be rendered.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in the evidence No. 1 as to the claim against Defendant B regarding the registration of the establishment of a new mortgage on April 21, 201, Defendant B failed to pay local taxes, and attached the secured debt on the instant mortgage on April 21, 201, and the fact that the additional registration of seizure was made on April 26, 201 as to the registration of the establishment of a new mortgage on April 26, 201. Meanwhile, the fact that the secured debt on the registration of the establishment of a new mortgage on the instant existing location was extinguished by prescription is as seen earlier.

In the event that 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 registration of creation of the right to collateral security is to publicly announce the seizure of the right to collateral security because the seizure of the right to collateral security becomes effective even in the right attached to the right to collateral security upon the seizure of the right to collateral security. Thus, if the right to collateral security does not exist, the seizure order shall be null and void, and if the right to collateral security is cancelled, the third party with a interest in the registration shall express his/her consent to the cancellation of the right

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da72070 Decided December 24, 2009 and Supreme Court Decision 2003Da70041 Decided May 28, 2004, etc.).