1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 27, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with E, which provides D’s fluence (hereinafter “the instant fluence”) on the part of the first and second floors of the Geumcheon-gu Seoul Building, Geumcheon-gu (hereinafter “the instant fluence”) with respect to the leisure within the instant fluence, with the lease deposit amounting to KRW 150 million, and the period as of April 13, 2016, and paid KRW 150 million to E.

At the time, the Plaintiff and E set up a collateral security against the Plaintiff to secure the Plaintiff’s claim for the return of the said lease deposit (hereinafter “instant lease deposit claim”).

B. However, as prior collateral is established, the Plaintiff demanded a different security against E as the value of the security is weak due to the establishment of prior collateral.

Accordingly, F, which is the E-N and the actual operator of the flusium in this case, provided as security the Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Building 104 (hereinafter “instant secured commercial building”) where the ownership transfer registration has been completed in the name of the defendant.

C. Accordingly, on June 25, 2015, between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, regarding the instant secured commercial building, a document establishing a mortgage agreement between the Plaintiff and the mortgagee and the mortgagee of the instant secured commercial building with the amount of KRW 150,000,000,000,000 for the Defendant and the maximum amount of debt (the evidence No. 3; hereinafter “instant mortgage agreement”).

After that, the business of the instant impergies was suspended for reasons such as the failure to pay public charges imposed on the instant impergies, and the Plaintiff retired from the impergies on June 17, 2016, after the lease term expires.

[Grounds for recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion of the mortgage contract of this case, and the priority mortgage contract of this case was established at the time of establishing the mortgage contract of this case, and thus, the value of the security interest is set.