1. The defendant received on May 9, 2008 from the Suwon District Court for each real estate listed in the attached list to the plaintiff.

1. The establishment registration of the right to collateral security (hereinafter “instant right to collateral security”) was completed with respect to each of the real estates listed in the separate list owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant real estate”) as indicated in the order that the mortgagee of the right to collateral security and the maximum debt amount of KRW 190 million is KRW 190 million.

[Reasons for Recognition] Class A 7-2, 4, and 9-2

2. The parties' assertion

A. On May 6, 2008, the Plaintiff created the instant right to collateral security in order to secure the Defendant’s obligation to borrow loans against the Defendant.

However, the defendant did not lend money to C.

Therefore, since the right to collateral security of this case does not exist, there is no legal act that establishes the secured claim, the defendant is obligated to cancel the registration of creation of mortgage of this case to the plaintiff

B. Around November 2006, the Defendant delegated D with D the sale of KRW 163 million E 201 of Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E 201 (hereinafter “instant housing”) purchased by the Defendant as D’s intermediary.

D around April 30, 2008, F, etc. sold the instant housing in KRW 135 million and received the price.

D around April 30, 2008, upon the Defendant’s consent, made an agreement to pay up to September 30, 2008 to the Defendant KRW 190,000,000,000, including the investment profits and the amount to be compensated for sales losses, while investing the above sales amount in the video complex development project.

On June 17, 2008, the Plaintiff guaranteed D’s obligation to pay the above agreed amount. On June 26, 2008, the Plaintiff issued a promissory note with a face value of KRW 190 million.

Therefore, the instant right to collateral security is a valid right to collateral security with the said secured claim and promissory note payment claim as the secured claim.

3. The judgment of the court is a mortgage which only determines the maximum amount of the debt to be secured and reserving the determination of the debt in the future (Article 357(1) of the Civil Act), which is a security for a certain period for settlement of accounts in the future.