1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The defendant is about 24,893 square meters of woodland C in Gangseo-gun, Gangwon-do.

1. Basic facts

A. At around May 2008, E borrowed a promissory note with the face value of KRW 30 million issued by F from F (hereinafter “F”) in order to raise funds for the I’s operating funds that it operated (hereinafter “B”).

B. In order to provide the Plaintiff with a security for the obligation arising from the borrowing of Promissory Notes, E requested the Plaintiff to set up a collateral on the land of 24,893 square meters (hereinafter “instant real estate”). On August 14, 2008, the Plaintiff: (a) on the instant real estate, the maximum debt amount was KRW 40 million with respect to the instant real estate; and (b) on the F’s request, the mortgagee was registered as F’s director.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, testimony of witness E, purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Since the secured obligation of the instant right to collateral security has already expired due to the completion of prescription, the registration of the establishment of the instant mortgage ought to be cancelled. (2) E and D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) operating the said right at a discount of a promissory note with a face value of KRW 20,90,000 issued by F (hereinafter “second Promissory Notes”) and a one promissory note with a face value of KRW 60,000,000 (hereinafter “third Promissory Notes”). However, even if the said promissory note was fully paid to F, even if the said amount was paid to F, the said two promissory notes were not paid to each of the holders of each of the promissorysory notes, and thus, D and E paid a face value of KRW 80,90,000 to each of the holders of the respective

Accordingly, D and E had F with a claim of KRW 80,90,000,000,000, and it was set off against the secured claim of this case with an automatic claim and the secured claim of this case was all extinguished.

Therefore, the registration of the establishment of the neighboring mortgage of this case should be cancelled.