The plaintiff's primary and conjunctive claims are all dismissed.

2. The total cost of the lawsuit.

A. On June 8, 2012, the Plaintiff sold to C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “C”) KRW 300 million the purchase price of KRW 1818 square meters of D Forest land in Pyeongtaek-gun, Gangwon-do (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”). However, at the time of concluding a contract, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of C on the instant land on June 11, 2012 by paying KRW 150 million the remainder of KRW 150 million upon receipt of the contract deposit. Within one year, C newly constructed a multi-household house on the instant land and entered into a sales contract to substitute the Plaintiff for payment of KRW 201 of the household floor (hereinafter “instant sales contract”); and on June 11, 2012, C completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of C.

B. On December 26, 2012, C entered into a mortgage agreement with the Defendant on the instant land (hereinafter “mortgage agreement”) and completed the registration of establishment of a mortgage over KRW 100 million of the total amount of claims collected in the future of the Defendant.

(hereinafter “instant collateral security”). C.

At the time of the contract to establish the instant mortgage, the instant land had already been registered to create a senior mortgage over KRW 14 million in the future of Samcheon Mutual Savings Bank Co., Ltd., which was a senior mortgagee. However, according to the voluntary auction application of Samcheon Mutual Savings Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “ Samcheon Mutual Savings Bank”), the Defendant received dividends of KRW 84,544,020 as the second priority mortgagee.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 16-1 through 3, the court of first instance, the fact inquiry results of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and the purport of whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's ground for claim

A. Since the debtor C bears the obligation to pay the balance of the purchase price to the plaintiff as the principal claim is a fraudulent act, the mortgage contract of this case between the defendant and the defendant is revoked, and the defendant, the beneficiary, has already been a beneficiary.