1. Defendant B: (a) on August 3, 2016, the Daegu District Court in relation to the Plaintiff’s 5362 square meters in Gyeonggldong-gun D, Gyeongdong-gun.

1. Claim against Defendant C

A. (1) On August 2, 2016, the Plaintiff sold the Plaintiff’s real estate to Defendant B at KRW 150 million (hereinafter “instant land”).

(B) On August 3, 2016, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant land to Defendant B on the grounds of the instant sale.

(2) On August 10, 2016, Defendant C’s acquisition of the right to collateral security (hereinafter “instant right to collateral security”) completed the registration of creation of the right to collateral security (hereinafter “instant right to collateral security”) causing 200 million won to the maximum debt amount regarding the instant real estate to Defendant C.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. (1) The Plaintiff’s assertion (A) even though Defendant B did not have the intent and ability to pay the price, and received the registration of ownership transfer by deceiving the Plaintiff to purchase the instant land.

Since the instant sales contract was concluded by fraud, it is revoked, and thus cancelled as it did not receive the sales amount.

(B) Defendant C completed the registration of establishment of the instant right to collateral security even though it did not actually lend money in collusion with Defendant B.

The registration of the establishment of the instant right to collateral security is null and void, or is based on the registration of the transfer of ownership of the instant case, which will be cancelled by the cancellation of the instant sales contract.

(2) (A) According to the statement in Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 3-1 through 6, Eul evidence Nos. 4, 5, and Eul evidence Nos. 6-1 through 3 as to whether the mortgage of this case is null and void, it can be acknowledged that defendant C has actually lent money to the defendant Eul and completed the registration of establishment of the mortgage of this case.

The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant right to collateral security is null and void is rejected.

(B) The seller becomes aware of the grounds for cancellation of the instant sales contract and is incompatible with the seller’s rescission of the sales contract.