1. On December 2, 2014, the Defendant: (a) on each real estate listed in the attached list to the Plaintiff, the Seoul Western District Court shall make a registration office of Eunpyeong Branch.

1. According to the overall purport of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, according to the purport of evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as well as the entire pleadings, the fact that the Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government land, D land, and its ground buildings (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant real estate”) owned by the Plaintiff, and that the establishment registration of the neighboring mortgage No. 72573 of the Seoul Western District Court was completed on December 29, 2014 with respect to the instant real estate as the Plaintiff, the mortgagee, and the mortgagee, and the fact that the Defendant inherited E alone upon the death of the E is recognized.

2. In a case where a right to collateral security is established on a legal parcel of land related to the determination of the cause of a claim and an agreement between the parties on the establishment of the right to collateral security and an agreement between the parties registers an owner on the registry as an obligor on the behalf of the obligor, the obligation secured by the right to collateral security on the land shall be deemed an obligation to the actual obligor (see Supreme Court Decision 98Da47085, Jun. 25, 199). On the other hand, in a lawsuit seeking confirmation of the existence of the right to collateral security, if the Plaintiff, who is the obligor, claims to deny the fact of the cause of the obligation

I would like to say.

(Supreme Court Decision 97Da45259 delivered on March 13, 1998, and Supreme Court Decision 2007Da67772 delivered on May 31, 2007). The judgment of the court below is based on the absence of transaction relationship with the network E, and the existence of the obligation to the network E, and the cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the creation of the creation of the creation of the neighboring mortgage of the instant case.

In regard to this, the defendant did not make any specific argument about the existence of the secured obligation of the right to collateral security, and there is no evidence to acknowledge the existence of the secured obligation of the right to collateral security of this case.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to cancel the registration of establishment of the neighboring mortgage of this case to the plaintiff.

3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is accepted on the ground of the reasons.