1. The plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant C shall be dismissed.

2. Defendant B shall provide each real estate listed in the separate sheet to the Plaintiff.

1. In determining the legitimacy of the lawsuit against Defendant C, the Plaintiff completed the registration of the establishment of the right to collateral security (hereinafter “instant right to collateral security”) as stated in the Disposition No. 2 against Defendant C, but sought confirmation of the non-existence of the said right to collateral security (hereinafter “instant right to collateral security”).

In the litigation of confirmation ex officio, the subject of confirmation requires the present rights or legal relations. Thus, barring any special circumstance, it is not recognized that there has been previous rights or legal relations. Thus, when a lawsuit of confirmation of non-existence of a secured obligation of the right to collateral security is cancelled, there is no benefit of confirmation as to the existence of past rights or legal relations (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Da17585, Aug. 23, 2013). As delineated below, insofar as ordering the transferee of the right to collateral security of this case to cancel the performance against the transferee of the right to collateral security of this case, there is no benefit of seeking confirmation of non-existence of the secured obligation of this case.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit against Defendant C is unlawful.

2. On November 15, 2006, the Plaintiff entered into the instant mortgage agreement with Defendant C with a maximum debt amount of KRW 250 million with respect to each real estate indicated in the separate sheet, and on November 22, 2006, the establishment registration of the instant neighboring mortgage was completed to Defendant C. On July 28, 2010, Defendant B completed the additional registration on July 29, 2010 upon the transfer of the instant floating mortgage from Defendant C from the Defendant C and completed the additional registration on July 29, 2010. The Plaintiff asserted that there was no secured debt of the instant floating mortgage, and that Defendant B led to the confession under Article 150 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Therefore, Defendant B is obligated to implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the mortgage of this case to the Plaintiff.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant C is dismissed as illegal, and the claim against the defendant B is justified.