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

A. A. Around March 2010, the Plaintiff’s ASEAN visited the Defendant’s Economic Business Division (Yaju-Eup, Young-si) and consulted on the transaction outside grain. On May 20, 2010, the Defendant entered into an agreement on the transaction outside grain (hereinafter “instant agreement”) with the Defendant to supply rice to B on credit, and B shall pay the price at an annual interest rate of 8.05% within 400 million won, and at an overdue interest rate of 17.05% (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

B. On April 23, 2010, upon B’s request, the Plaintiff prepared a written application for providing collateral and each of the real estates listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant real estates”) stating that B will provide collateral for the Defendant with regard to the obligation of KRW 400 million to be borne by B (hereinafter “instant real estates”) with regard to the limited collateral for collateral loan transaction as a maximum maximum debt amount of the deed loan transaction (hereinafter “the instant collateral security contract”).

Accordingly, on May 26, 2010, the registration of the creation of the right to collateral security (hereinafter “instant right to collateral security”) with the maximum debt amount of KRW 560,000,000,000,000 for joint collateral, B, and the Defendant of the right to collateral security (hereinafter “right to collateral security”).

C. On the other hand, on September 5, 2012, the Plaintiff repaid KRW 239,871,232 of the obligation owed by B to the Defendant under the instant transaction agreement, and accordingly, revoked the instant collateral security.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3 (including provisional number), Eul evidence 1 to 4, and 6, Eul's testimony, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The summary of the argument was that the Plaintiff prepared the instant collateral security document to secure the Defendant’s obligation for the instrument loan that the Plaintiff owes to the Defendant. However, the instant collateral security document was invalidated due to the Defendant’s refusal of the instrument loan.

Nevertheless, ..