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

A. On January 8, 2014, the Plaintiff lent KRW 15 million to C. On January 8, 2014, the Plaintiff drafted a notarial deed of monetary loan agreement containing the content that, with respect to KRW 45 million among the above loans, the due date for repayment shall be February 8, 2014; and interest shall be 20% per annum; and even if a notary public is subject to compulsory execution with No. 3 of 2014, a certificate of monetary loan agreement containing the content that he/she does not raise any objection; on April 28, 2014, the remaining KRW 60,000 shall be due date for repayment; on June 30, 2014, the interest shall be 34.9% per annum; and on January 8, 2014, a notary public made a notarial deed containing no objection even if he/she was subject to compulsory execution under No. 48 of 2014.

B. On February 19, 2014, C concluded between the Defendant and the Defendant to set up a maximum debt amount of KRW 260 million with respect to each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”). On February 19, 2014, C concluded to set up a right to collateral security (hereinafter “instant contract”). On February 19, 2014, C completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter “registration of creation of a neighboring real estate”).

【Reasons for Recognition】 The descriptions of Evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Since the instant mortgage contract is null and void as it was concluded without monetary transaction by means of a false agreement between C and the Defendant for the evasion of debt, the Plaintiff seeks to cancel the registration of creation of mortgage of the instant case, which is the invalidation of the cause by subrogation of C, which is the primary debt excess C. 2) As the instant mortgage contract is deemed to have reduced the liability property by providing security to a specific creditor under the status of excess of debt C, it constitutes a fraudulent act and is presumed to have been maliciously committed by the Defendant, the Plaintiff seeks to cancel the instant mortgage contract and restore it to its original state.