1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Facts of recognition

On September 8, 2011, the Plaintiff: (a) purchased from the Defendant a certification that contains the following agreements, i.e., (i., (ii) apartment units D, (iii) apartment units E, and (iv) apartment units F (hereinafter referred to as “D units”; (iv) and (v) apartment units F, such as (v) apartment units D, (v) and (v) apartment units; and (v) if all of them are referred,

(hereinafter referred to as “instant contract”). The Defendant is prohibited from conducting any secured loan and any financial transaction for each apartment.

The plaintiff is obligated to repay the amount of KRW 44.1 million for each apartment mortgage loan in the name of the defendant, and all interest on the loan shall be paid by the plaintiff.

The defendant transferred the ownership registration of each apartment to the plaintiff after July 12, 2015.

When changing the tenants of each apartment house, the defendant shall cooperate with the conditions of the plaintiff.

The Plaintiff, in relation to the instant contract, remitted each of the Defendant’s accounts KRW 24.5 million on September 22, 201, KRW 10 million on October 18, 201, KRW 30 million on July 7, 2012, and KRW 2 million on July 11, 2012.

On July 19, 2012, the Defendant created a right to collateral security of KRW 11,580,000 with respect to subparagraph D with respect to the said association, after obtaining a loan from the G association. On December 31, 2012, the Defendant created a right to collateral security of KRW 41,60,000 with respect to subparagraph D with respect to the maximum debt amount.

(On the other hand, with regard to subparagraph (D), the existing right to collateral security, which was the subject of the right to collateral security, was cancelled on January 2, 2013). Each apartment house was sold to a third party by voluntary auction from March 3, 2015 to October 28 of the same year.

[Ground of recognition] The plaintiff asserted that there was no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 6, Eul evidence Nos. 2 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings, and the plaintiff's assertion of the purport of the whole pleadings was paid KRW 70 million to the defendant under the contract of this case. Each apartment unit subject to the contract of this case is all third parties.