1. The Defendant received on June 26, 201 from the Incheon District Court Branch for the building indicated in the attached list to the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 13, 2012, the Defendant, as the owner of the building listed in the attached list (hereinafter “instant building”), completed the registration of creation of a collateral (Seoul District Court Decision 59003, Jun. 13, 2012, which was received on June 13, 2012, based on D’s maximum debt amount of KRW 200 million, E, the debtor, the mortgagee of the right to collateral security, and on the same day as the grounds for registration, (hereinafter “instant collateral”).

B. Around July 2, 2012, 2012, D notified E of the purport that D transferred the instant right to collateral security and the instant right to collateral security that D had against E to the Plaintiff. On July 2, 2012, the Plaintiff filed for additional registration on the transfer of the instant right to collateral security on the ground of transfer of confirmed claim (No. 66198, Jul. 26, 2012, the lower court submitted documents necessary for the cancellation of the registration right to collateral security in the instant court on June 26, 2013, and the said right to collateral security was cancelled on the same day.

(No. 67035, Jun. 26, 2013). [Ground of recognition] No. 67035] A, entry of evidence No. 1 and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. We examine the judgment of the plaintiff's cause of the claim, and add the purport of the entire pleadings to the statement No. 1 of the evidence No. 1, since the defendant did not agree with the plaintiff with regard to the cancellation registration of the establishment registration of the neighboring mortgage of this case and did not obtain consent from the plaintiff, the above cancellation registration was made without any cause.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for recovery registration of the establishment registration of the neighboring mortgage of this case that was cancelled to the Plaintiff.

Although the Defendant asserts to the effect that the registration of cancellation was lawful, since the Plaintiff believed the horses of D and cancelled the instant right to collateral security, that the Plaintiff consented to the cancellation of the registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage of this case.