1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On March 12, 2002, the Plaintiff completed the registration of initial ownership relating to the instant real estate. On June 15, 2015, the Defendant completed the registration of initial ownership establishment of the instant real estate under the Seoul Western District Court’s receipt of the Yongsan District Court’s Branch Office, No. 22879, the maximum debt amount of KRW 200 million, and the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage to the Plaintiff as the Plaintiff (hereinafter “registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage”).

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence No. 1, and the purport of whole pleading

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) On June 2015, 1) the Plaintiff’s assertion that “If the establishment registration of a neighboring real estate was completed on the instant real estate, the relative D will lend KRW 200 million to the Defendant without interest,” and the Plaintiff had a personal seal impression and a seal impression necessary for the establishment registration of a neighboring real estate to C, and the establishment registration of a neighboring real estate was completed by C through delivery of the said personal seal impression, etc. to D.

However, despite the completion of the registration of the establishment of the neighboring mortgage of this case, the defendant did not lend KRW 200 million to the plaintiff.

As such, since the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage of this case is registration of invalidity of cause of registration due to non-existence of cause of registration, the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage of this case must be cancelled.

B) The Defendant did not lend KRW 200 million to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff cancels a loan agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the grounds of such delay. Therefore, since the establishment registration of the instant neighboring mortgage was registered as invalid due to the said cancellation, the establishment registration of the instant neighboring mortgage should be cancelled. 2) The Defendant alleged that the Defendant lent KRW 500 million to D, and C promised to complete the establishment registration of the instant neighboring mortgage as to KRW 200 million out of the loan debt of KRW 500 million to D, since it had been much new in the process of delivering goods to D stores operated.

B. Judgment 1 of this case