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

A. The Defendants are married couple.

B. On May 20, 2010, Defendant B completed the registration of the creation of a neighboring mortgage with respect to the one-story neighborhood living facilities (a resting room; hereinafter “instant building”) on the land surface of 3 lots, F, Macheon-si, F, and one-story, which were owned by Defendant B, with the maximum debt amount of KRW 150,00,000, D, and E.

C. On June 27, 201, upon the application of D and E, voluntary decision on commencement of auction (hereinafter “instant auction”) was rendered on June 27, 201, and the registration of voluntary decision on commencement of auction was completed on the same day.

Defendant B asserted that on January 6, 2012, both the Plaintiff of the Seoul Central District Court and the Defendants deposited the money with the District Court on January 6, 2012, but according to the evidence No. 3, the deposit was made at the Seoul Central District Court.

No. 469 of 2012 deposited KRW 137,00,000 for D and E due to the failure of D and E to receive reimbursement (hereinafter “first deposit”).

E. In addition, on February 6, 2012, Defendant B deposited KRW 10,00,000 as the District Court No. 574 in order to provide security for the compulsory execution suspension case No. 2012Kao69 (hereinafter “second deposit”).

F. After that, D and E withdrawn the instant auction on July 19, 2012, and on July 23, 2012, the registration of the decision on commencement of auction was cancelled on the grounds of the said withdrawal.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 3, 6, and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) is a director in charge of the business of H, a corporation manufacturing and selling ready-mixed. The Plaintiff frequently used the restaurant operated by Defendant B in the instant building, and is related to the Defendants as the relationship in which the said company supplied ready-mixed to the construction company operated by Defendant C. 2. 2) The Plaintiff received a request from the Defendants to lend money under the pretext of cancelling the auction of this case.