2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

A. On November 1, 2002, Plaintiff B prepared to the Defendant a certificate of borrowed money of KRW 50,000,000 for borrowed money, the due date of payment on March 30, 2006, the interest rate of KRW 2% for interest ( KRW 1,00,000 for each month), and the interest payment date of KRW 30 for each month.

B. On April 13, 2006, Plaintiff B entered into a mortgage agreement with the Defendant on the following: (a) as to the cement, brick structure, and 59.5 square meters of the cement and a branch of the ground-based housing (hereinafter “instant real estate”), the mortgagee of the right to collateral security, the mortgagee of the right to collateral security, G, the debtor, and the maximum debt amount of KRW 50,000,000 with respect to the instant real estate (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

On the same day, the Defendant completed the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter “instant collateral security”) with the content of the instant real estate under the No. 12067 on the same day.

C. Meanwhile, upon the death of G, the Plaintiffs completed the registration of ownership transfer on November 25, 2015 on the instant real estate on the ground of inheritance on January 7, 2014.

The Defendant, based on the instant right to collateral security on March 25, 2016, received a voluntary decision to commence the auction of the instant real estate from the official branch of the Daejeon District Court around March 25, 2016, and currently, did not reach the distribution procedure.

[Reasons for Recognition: The descriptions of Evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 and the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The gist of the Plaintiffs’ assertion is not to guarantee the net G’s obligation to borrow loans to the Defendant, but to guarantee the Plaintiff’s obligation to borrow loans.

Therefore, the right to collateral security of this case, which the network G, is recorded as the debtor, is null and void by the false representation of the agreement between the network G and the defendant.

In addition, Plaintiff B, a real debtor of the instant right to collateral security, has borrowed only KRW 30,00,000 from the Defendant, and even if the interest agreement was not made in the process, the Defendant requested the loan.