A. From October 2012, A (hereinafter “Bankruptcy”) had been declared bankrupt by the above court on November 10, 2014, the bankrupt (hereinafter “C”) operated F, a pro rata, in the Osan City, and was in a situation where it is impossible to pay the debt around November 2013. On July 25, 2014, Seoul Central District Court Decision 2014Hadan7559, and 2014Ha759, the bankruptcy and immunity application was filed, and the Plaintiff was appointed as the bankruptcy trustee on the same day.

B. On June 18, 2012, the Defendant, as a father of the bankrupt, lent KRW 220 million to the bankrupt. On October 2, 2013, the Defendant concluded a mortgage agreement with the bankrupt regarding the G Apartment No. 503-dong No. 802 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) with respect to the instant real estate (hereinafter “instant real estate”) with the maximum debt amount, KRW 170 million,000,000,000, the debtor, the bankrupt, and the Defendant’s mortgagee’s right to collateral security (hereinafter “instant mortgage agreement”), and completed the registration of the establishment of a mortgage in the name of the Defendant as to the instant real estate on October 4, 2013.

C. On June 12, 2014, after a creditor H filed an application for a compulsory auction of the instant real estate with respect to the instant real estate on June 12, 2014, the procedures for a compulsory auction of Suwon District Court D and E (Dual) real estate was conducted. On December 18, 2014, the Plaintiff, the bankruptcy trustee, appeared on the date of distribution, and raised an objection against the Defendant on December 22, 2014, against the total amount of KRW 49,034,953, which is seven days thereafter.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, Eul evidence No. 2 (including evidence attached with a serial number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The party's assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the mortgage contract of this case was established on the part of the Defendant, who was the sole party to the bankrupt’s property, because it did not have any substance of the secured claim, is false or established on the sole property of the bankrupt.