A. The Plaintiff operated the Credit Business Chain Co., Ltd. from around 2002 to around 2010, and the Defendant served as the head of the above company.

On December 2007, the Plaintiff prepared a certificate of borrowing KRW 1 billion from the Defendant, and from March 2008 to January 201, 2012, the Plaintiff paid KRW 728,40,000,000 to the Defendant in total, 66 times as interest for KRW 1 billion.

B. On June 9, 2009, the Plaintiff completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter “registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage”) under the Seoul Central District Court No. 36526 on the ground of a contract establishing a mortgage on the same day with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) to the Defendant, with the amount of the mortgagee as the Defendant, the debtor as the Plaintiff, and the maximum debt amount as 60 million won.

C. On June 2009, the Plaintiff paid to the Defendant a total of KRW 600 million by paying cashier’s checks of KRW 100 million at face value, and by paying cashier’s checks of KRW 500 million at face value.

On August 22, 2011, the Plaintiff settled the monetary transaction relationship with the Defendant and prepared a new loan certificate stating that the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 400 million from the Defendant.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 6 (including each number), entry of Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The registration of the establishment of a mortgage of this case was null and void when the National Tax Service conspired with the Plaintiff in order to prepare for the seizure of the Plaintiff’s property. As such, the Defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for the cancellation of the establishment of a mortgage of this case. 2) Preliminaryly, the registration of the establishment of a mortgage of this case was made by coercion, such as the Defendant’s intimidation, and the Plaintiff’s establishment of a mortgage of this case was revoked.