1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The facts subsequent to the facts of recognition may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the entries in Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 3 to 7 (including numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the testimony of the witness C, and the whole purport of the pleadings.

The Plaintiff is the owner of the 1/2 share of the instant real estate.

B. The Plaintiff confirmed that the Defendant was liable for KRW 70,000,000, and drafted a letter of payment to the effect that it would be repaid by January 31, 2017.

C. On December 6, 2016, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a mortgage agreement with the maximum debt amount of KRW 75,000,000 with respect to the share of KRW 1/2 of the instant real estate, and with respect to bills, loans, guarantees, and other obligations to be borne by the Plaintiff to the Defendant present or future. On the same day, the Plaintiff completed the registration of the establishment of a mortgage as stated in the purport of the claim (hereinafter “instant mortgage”).

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff’s claim that the secured debt of the instant right to collateral security was a material price to be paid by the Defendant to G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”) with respect to Franok Corporation located in Daegu Suwon-gu, the owner D, the owner of the instant right. The Plaintiff was formally acknowledged to the Defendant.

Although there is a fact that a written statement of payment was prepared like the same paragraph, the defendant is not obliged to bear the obligation according to the language of the written statement of payment, and the defendant was paid all the material price from G or owner D.

Therefore, since the secured debt of the instant right to collateral security does not exist or disappeared, the establishment registration of the instant right to collateral security should be cancelled.

B. The above facts of recognition were examined.

C. As stated in paragraph (1), the Plaintiff prepared a letter of payment and set up the instant right to collateral security. The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge that there was no secured obligation of the instant right to collateral security by following the existence and content of the declaration of intent stated in the said letter of payment, which is a disposal document.