2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The Defendant supplied goods from the Plaintiff at the time of wholesale and retail business with the trade name of “B” and continued the goods transaction with the Plaintiff until May 1, 2007, even after the Defendant established D on January 14, 2004, on the ground that “B was the representative director in form,” and on August 19, 2005, it continued the transaction with the Plaintiff by May 1, 2007.

B. On February 9, 2006, the Defendant completed the registration of creation of a mortgage on the Daegu Suwon-gu F apartment No. 103, 601 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) owned by E to secure the Plaintiff’s goods payment obligation. On April 12, 2006, the Defendant completed the registration of creation of a mortgage on the debtor’s neighboring apartment, and completed on April 12, 2006, 70,000,000 won with respect to the portion of I out of the Daegu-gu G G G, Daegu-gu and 165 square meters and H large 166 square meters, and completed the registration of establishment of a mortgage on the debtor’s Defendant.

C. On August 22, 2011, the instant apartment was sold to J on August 2, 201. On November 7, 2011, J paid KRW 50,500,000, out of the purchase price to the seller on November 7, 2011, to the Plaintiff, who is the right to collateral security, and cancelled the right to collateral security established in the name of the Plaintiff.

As of May 1, 2007, at the end of the transaction, the balance of the product price obligations against the plaintiff of defendant and D Co., Ltd. as of May 1, 2007 remains in total 157,619,060.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant goods payment obligation”). 【Non-satisfy in dispute regarding the grounds for recognition, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4 through 8, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including each number), witness K and C’s testimony, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1 Plaintiff, Inc., is a company of the Defendant, which is a body corporate, and the party who bears the instant goods payment obligation is the Defendant.

In addition, the actual owner of the apartment of this case is the defendant, and the defendant sold it to J and made the plaintiff pay part of the purchase price to the plaintiff, so the defendant gives up the prescription benefit of the goods price obligation.

Therefore, the defendant is against the plaintiff.