1. The defendant shall register Nonparty C with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet in the Gwangju District Court, and on March 208.

Facts of recognition

On April 27, 2011, the Plaintiff filed an application with Nonparty C for a payment order with the Gwangju District Court 201j943. On April 27, 2011, the said court issued C a payment order ordering the Plaintiff to pay KRW 13,013,309 and delay damages therefor. The payment order became final and conclusive around that time.

On June 27, 2008, the non-party C completed the registration of establishment of a mortgage (hereinafter referred to as the "registration of establishment of a mortgage of this case") with respect to each real estate listed in the attached list (hereinafter referred to as the "real estate of this case"), the grounds for registration was completed on June 24, 2008 by the joint establishment of a mortgage agreement and the maximum debt amount of the non-party C with the Defendant at KRW 20,000,000.

【The ground for recognition】 The instant mortgage, which was established on the instant real estate owned by Nonparty C, by the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the existence of the secured debt from the beginning, or the existence of the secured debt from the beginning, should have been cancelled due to the lapse of payment or extinctive prescription, etc., even though there was no dispute, as to the Plaintiff’s written evidence Nos. 1 through 9, Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 through 5, and

The Plaintiff, as a creditor of Nonparty C, seeks the cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the mortgage of this case against the Defendant on behalf of Nonparty C.

The relevant legal doctrine stipulates only the maximum amount of the debt to be secured, and it is a mortgage that is created by reserving the determination of the debt in the future (Article 357(1) of the Civil Act), and when it is confirmed that there is no secured claim of the right to collateral security, the registration of the establishment

On the other hand, if there is no legal act that establishes the secured claim of the right to collateral at the time of the establishment of the right to collateral security, the burden of proof as to whether there is such a legal act is asserted.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Da225011, Sept. 12, 2017). In this case, the Defendant is also excluded from the date of pleading 1 and 2.