If there is no secured claim of the right to collateral security, seizure shall be null and void.

If there is no secured claim of the right to collateral security, the seizure is null and void, so if the right to collateral security is cancelled, the seizure holder must express his/her consent to cancel the right to collateral security.

2017 Gaz. 1934 Cancellation of the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage

OO

Republic of Korea and one other

March 23, 2018

April 20, 2018

1. Defendant AA Co., Ltd will implement the procedures for registration of cancellation of the establishment registration of a mortgage near the establishment registration completed by OO district court OO branch office 2010O.O.O.O. receipt O.O.O.O.O.O.

2. Defendant Republic of Korea has expressed its intent to accept the registration of cancellation under Paragraph 1 to the Plaintiff.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Defendants.

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff completed the registration of establishment of a collateral security (hereinafter referred to as the “instant collateral security”) set forth in Paragraph 1 of the Disposition, which was the maximum debt amount of 20,000,000 won, BB, and Defendant AAA Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant AA”) on the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as the “instant real estate”), which is one of the owners of O.O.O.O., on the ground of the contract established by O.O.O., the Plaintiff.

B. Meanwhile, as Defendant AA was delinquent in national taxes, the attachment registration of the instant collateral security was completed in the future of the Republic of Korea on the grounds of the attachment of the 2017O.O.O.O. on the grounds of the attachment of the 2017O.O.O.

Grounds for Recognition

AA: Confession

Republic of Korea: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff asserts that the DoD Corporation, a bankruptcy creditor corporation, CCC bank, etc., a creditor of Defendant AA, had a duty to cancel the instant right of collateral, and that the Defendant Republic of Korea, who completed the registration of attachment of the right of collateral security, had a duty to express his/her consent for the above cancellation registration, on the ground that the registration of attachment of the right of collateral security was defective with respect to the instant right of collateral security, and that the Plaintiff extinguished by subrogation of the secured obligation of the said right of collateral security to the DoD Corporation.

3. Determination as to Defendant AA’s claim

Since Defendant AA does not dispute the Plaintiff’s above assertion, Defendant AA is obligated to implement the procedure for cancellation registration of the instant right to collateral security for reasons of extinguishment of the secured obligation.

4. Determination on the claim against Defendant Republic of Korea

A. In cases where a claim bearing a right to collateral security is seized, the purpose of registering the seizure of the right to collateral security by means of additional registration in the registration of the establishment of the right to collateral security is to publicly announce the seizure of the right to collateral security because the seizure of the right to collateral security becomes effective if the right to collateral security is seized by means of the seizure of the right to collateral security. Thus, if the right to collateral security does not exist, the seizure order shall be null and void. In cases where the right to collateral security is cancelled, the seizure right holder is obligated to express his/her consent to the cancellation of the right to collateral security as a third party having interests in the registration (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Da7041, May 28, 2004; 2009Da72070, Dec. 24, 2009).

B. In full view of the statements in Gap 2, 4, 5, and 6 as well as the fact-finding results of the fact-finding on the DD Corporation by this court, the following facts can be acknowledged: (1) The trustee in bankruptcy, such as the bankruptcy creditor corporation, CCC Bank, etc., which was the creditor of defendant AA, filed a registration of attachment of the collateral security right regarding the above collateral security right with the execution title for a total of six times from O.O.O.O. on 2017 to O.O. on 6 occasions; (2) the plaintiff paid the debt amount of KRW 20,000,000 on behalf of the debtor BB on behalf of the above collateral debtor B; and (3) DDR Corporation reported the debt collection to the Korea Administrative Court on O.O. on 2017 to cancel the registration of the collateral security right; and (6) thereafter, it can be acknowledged that it reported the attachment of the collateral security right.

The following circumstances are as follows: (1) Defendant AA, a collective security right holder of the instant case, did not dispute the termination of the secured obligation; (2) If an executor creditor collects from a third party obligor according to the seizure and collection order, the secured obligation would be extinguished; (20,000,00 won is deemed to be equal to the maximum debt amount of the instant secured obligation and reaches the total amount of the instant secured obligation; and (3) if the DD Corporation, a public professional institution, determined that there was a remaining amount of the secured obligation, it would have been assumed that the registration of the attachment of the instant secured obligation would not have been cancelled easily if it had been determined that there was a remaining amount of the secured obligation, it is reasonable to deem that the secured obligation of the instant secured obligation was extinguished by the Plaintiff’s subrogation.

C. Examining the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the registration of the establishment of a seizure entry on the registration of the establishment of the instant neighboring mortgage by the Defendant Republic of Korea was completed on the O.O.O. of the 2017 establishment of the said neighboring mortgage, and the seizure order issued by the Defendant Republic of Korea against the Defendant AA is null and void. As such, the Defendant Republic of Korea has a duty to express his/her consent to the cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a seizure ownership of the

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case against the defendants is justified and all of them are accepted. It is so decided as per Disposition.