1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. As to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) under the name of E (hereinafter “the instant real estate”), the registration of establishment of a mortgage (hereinafter “mortgage”) was cancelled on August 9, 2012 by the Ulsan District Court, Yangsan District Court, Yangsan Registry, 21342, which received on May 13, 2009, the maximum debt amount of KRW 200,000,000, and the Defendants, the Defendants of the right to collateral security, was terminated on August 9, 2012. The registration of establishment of a mortgage (hereinafter “the creation of a mortgage”) was completed on September 16, 2013 by the Ulsan District Court, Yangsan District Court, Yangsan Branch Registry, 250,000, the maximum debt amount of KRW 250,000,000,

B. On April 29, 2014, E died on April 29, 2014, and the Plaintiff independently succeeded to E’s property, and the Defendants are the same children of E.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 and 4-1, 2, Gap evidence 2 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Assertion and determination

A. (1) Plaintiff E did not actually borrow money from the Defendants that it was not necessary to borrow money.

The registration of the establishment of a new mortgage of this case is null and void since the establishment of a new mortgage of this case was completed with false marking although the secured debt does not exist at all.

E appropriated the new construction cost of the instant real estate as the compensation received in around 2004 and the money disposed of real estate around 2006.

around 206, the Defendants E built a new building among the instant real estate and borrowed construction costs from the Defendants, and failed to repay this, the Defendants set up a right to collateral security on May 13, 2009 with respect to the instant real estate.

E cancelled the aforementioned collateral security by selling the instant real estate and paying the borrowed amount, but it did not pay the borrowed amount, thereby re-establishing the instant collateral security.

B. According to the statement No. 1 (Evidence) presumed to have established the authenticity of the entire document due to the lack of dispute in the judgment E’s seal image, it is recognized that E, on September 14, 2013, prepared a certificate of borrowing with the purport that he/she has a liability of KRW 250 million from the Defendants.

Contents of the above loan certificate; and