1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. This Court shall suspend compulsory execution of the 2016 Chicago27.

Basic Facts

On July 20, 201, Nonparty E, who solely owned the instant forest, borrowed each KRW 50 million from the Defendants, and completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage on the instant forest land and G land, including the instant forest land, with each maximum claim amounting to KRW 75 million, in order to secure this.

On July 23, 2012, the Plaintiff purchased KRW 5,500 out of the instant forest land from E, and agreed to implement the co-owned property partition procedure after completing the registration of ownership transfer as to shares on August 18, 2012, and completed the registration of ownership transfer as to the said shares transfer.

【The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff’s assertion of the purport of the Plaintiff’s respective statements and arguments as to Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 6, and Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 was made between the Defendants at the time of a sales contract with the Plaintiff, E paid only KRW 30 million out of the borrowed money to the Defendants, and upon which the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage corresponding to the Plaintiff’s co-ownership share was cancelled, E paid KRW 30 million each to the Defendants as the sales price received from the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the Defendants are obligated to cancel the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage corresponding to the Plaintiff’s co-ownership share in the instant forest.

Judgment

A mortgagee may exercise his right over the whole of the mortgaged until he obtains satisfaction of his claim in full.

(Article 370 and Article 321 of the Civil Act). In light of the argument that, if E pays 30 million won to the Defendants, the right to collateral security as to the Plaintiff’s co-ownership was cancelled, each entry in the evidence Nos. 5 and 6 is difficult for the originator to believe it as it is in light of the relationship between the Plaintiff and E, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the above assertion.

Therefore, in the event that the Defendant’s obligation to borrow money was not fully repaid, seeking the cancellation of only the right to collateral security corresponding to the Plaintiff’s share out of the instant forest land is in accordance with Articles 370 and 321 of the Civil Act as seen earlier.