1. Of the instant lawsuit, the Defendant’s registration procedure for cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a mortgage on the attached sheet to the Plaintiff.

1. Requesting the confirmation of existence of an obligation;

A. In the course of selling a heavy tea in Defendant’s company (C), the Plaintiff first set up a collateral on the attached real estate owned by Defendant D (the Plaintiff’s mother) as collateral in order to provide financing from the Defendant, but the Defendant asserted that, unlike the promise, the Defendant did not actually pay the borrowed money to the Plaintiff, and sought confirmation that the Defendant had no collateral obligation against the Defendant.

B. In regard to this, the Defendant asserts that the secured obligation under the foregoing collateral was effective (as the Defendant’s assertion on the background of the occurrence of the secured obligation was partially changed or replaced during the lawsuit, the lower court’s final assertion should be indicated) and the Plaintiff’s claim.

The foregoing right to collateral security does not guarantee a loan of new funds, but is to secure a claim amounting to KRW 10 million, which the Defendant paid on behalf of the Plaintiff to Nonparty E (hereinafter referred to as the Plaintiff’s obligee) on December 31, 2013 ( KRW 9 million) and January 4, 2014 ( KRW 1 million) on behalf of the Plaintiff on behalf of the Plaintiff, and a claim amounting to KRW 10 million,000,000,000 and the Defendant’s remaining loan claims against the Plaintiff.

In the previous case, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant who was in the position of the president at June 2012, who was in the position of the president at the time of the early 2012, in order to promptly prepare a repayment for loans (a loan company: a loan company: a loan company; hereinafter referred to as the “small and Medium Enterprise Loan Co., Ltd.”) of approximately KRW 47 million which is useful for other purposes.

Accordingly, the defendant obtained E, a workplace partner, to assist the plaintiff, and the plaintiff, on June 24, 2012, borrowed KRW 40 million from E, and approximately KRW 7 million from the defendant, respectively, on the day of repayment to the non-party lender.

The plaintiff is due to that.