By performing such an act, the “legal title” is transferred to the beneficiary or beneficiary (usually lender), while the licensor (borrower) retains the “good property” to use and enjoy the transferred country, subject to compliance with the obligations contracted. Yet the safeguard act in Georgia does not work other than a mortgage in the “title theory”. Hypothetically, if an “absolute” or “perfect” security was held by a stock exchange, so that the grantor did not keep the equity of the repayment, then the stock exchange/lender would theoretically not have to forcibly close the grantor/borrower, but could cure a default by simple means of expulsion or “summary withdrawal”. However, a seizure, although extrajudicial, is necessary in Georgia to remedy a payment default. Due to the apparently contradictory nature of the Georgian statute, Georgian courts have interpreted the operation of security instruments in such a way that the grantor retains the own funds of the repayment, which requires extrajudicial or extrajudicial seizure as a remedy against the default of a loan. There are three legal theories concerning mortgages: title theory, deposit theory, and intermediate theory. These three theories focus in particular on the operation of mortgages and therefore provide the key to understanding the differences that exist in the realization of mortgage loans between legal orders. The solution was to combine the modern wadset and measuring instrument for years into a single transaction, embodied in two instruments: (1) the absolute transfer (the Charter) in fees or for years to the lender; (2) a bond or loan (the defeasance) that recites the loan and provides that in case of repayment, the country would be reinvested in the borrower, but if this is not the case, the lender would retain ownership. In the event of timely repayment, the lender would reinvest the security using a repayment instrument. This was the transfer mortgage (also known as a fee mortgage) or, if written, the charter and refurbishment mortgage and took the form of a feoffment, a good deal and sale or a lease and downgrade. Since the lender was not necessarily in possession, had rights of recourse, and the borrower had a right of recurrence, the mortgage was adequate collateral. .