2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

(1) B, etc. of the instant sales contract, and the Defendant, the wife thereof, around March 2015, shall be as follows: (a) Q forest land owned by C, etc. prior to registration conversion and partition; (b) Q forest land owned by B (hereinafter “ Q forest land”).

(3) The Defendant’s forest land 9,250 square meters (hereinafter “R forest”) prior to registration conversion and partition owned by the Defendant

(3) The Plaintiff sold Q forest land at KRW 2.14 billion [the remainder KRW 1.54 billion (the contract amount of KRW 1.54 billion, the remainder KRW 1.3776 billion), and R forest land amounting to KRW 699 billion] (The subsequent terms and conditions of the contract can be seen to have been modified, including the purchase price, etc.).

(2) The remainder payment date under the instant sales contract was July 30, 2015. However, the remainder payment date was postponed on the condition that C et al. bears all financial expenses, including interest on loans after the payment date of the remainder.

3) Meanwhile, according to the instant sales contract, B appears to be the sum of the loan interest, etc. accrued from May 26, 2015 to August 12, 2016 as the sales price for the forest owned by it and KRW 1,598,203,840 (the sum of the loan interest, etc. accrued as a result of failure to observe the remaining payment date) on seven occasions.

(1) As of August 2, 2011, the right to collateral security was respectively set up on August 2, 201, with the maximum debt amount of KRW 520 million, the debtor B, and the association of persons holding the right to collateral security (hereinafter “association”) and on December 8, 2011, with the maximum debt amount of KRW 130 million, the debtor B, and the association of persons holding the right to collateral security (hereinafter “association”).

(2) On August 5, 2015, the Defendant borrowed KRW 500 million from the partnership (hereinafter “instant loan”). The Defendant borrowed KRW 500 million from the partnership (hereinafter “instant loan”).

(B) The Defendant asserted that the instant loan was used to repay B’s loan obligations against B, which was secured by each of the instant collective security rights (the Defendant, at the time, did not extend the loan under the name of B, and thus, did not have been repaid by the Defendant’s loan obligations under the name of B.

On the other hand, each of the instant mortgages is related to each of the instant mortgages.