1. Defendant B’s transfer registration of the right to collateral security (No. 59798), which was received on November 30, 2015, to the Plaintiff, regarding the following real estate.

1. On May 6, 2013, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff sold the real estate located in Chuncheon to F and was created a collateral of KRW 150,000,000 with the maximum debt amount on each of the instant real estate as collateral for the remainder claims, and transferred the collateral to Defendant B for the purpose of collecting the claims, as described in the purport of the claim.

Since the registration of transfer of right to collateral security against the defendant was made with a false conspiracy with the plaintiff without any ground, the registration should be cancelled.

On the other hand, Defendant B created a pledge on the right to collateral security transferred by the Plaintiff to Defendant C without any reason, and thus, it is invalid as it was made by a false conspiracy without any reason.

2. The legitimate cause of the transfer of the right to collateral security against Defendant B cannot be proven as positive facts whether the person who asserts the existence can specifically assert and prove the existence, or the absence of the plaintiff who asserts the non-existence of the right.

Even if Defendant B’s service by public notice is conducted, such burden of proof cannot be applied differently, and there is no evidence as to the reason for the transfer of the right to collateral security, the claim against the Defendant is justified.

3. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire pleadings in the evidence of claim No. B and the reply of the Han Bank’s financial transaction data, the Defendant agreed to lend KRW 100 million to Defendant B on November 30, 2015, and lent from Defendant B’s G account to Defendant B’s mother H account on the same day and December 10, 2015, respectively, 10 million won on the same day, and 50 million won on December 10, 2015. In so doing, it is recognized that the right to collateral security was established as a collateral, and thus, the claim is without merit, given that there is a legitimate ground for

In other words, the circumstances disputing the Plaintiff, namely, that Defendant C deposited a considerable amount of money in G account, and the date of preparation of a loan certificate and the date of repayment of a mortgage pledge contract, are inconsistent with that of a loan certificate and a mortgage pledge contract, etc., by Defendant C.