1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Basic facts

A. Since around November 6, 2013, C is a person engaged in the new construction and sale of lending through D. The Defendant is a registered titleholder of the instant real estate by fraud. G and H entered into a partnership agreement with C to the effect that a new construction and sale of lending on the land of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E site and 139.8 square meters and F and 108 square meters on the land of 108 square meters and to distribute the profits therefrom.

B. C borrowed KRW 50 million from I on July 24, 2012 from October 31, 2012 to November 21, 2012, KRW 50 million from J, and KRW 10 million from K on April 26, 2013, in each Defendant’s name.

The Defendant, upon the request of C, placed his seal impression and bank passbook to C so that C can use funds by lending the name of the Defendant, and dispose of the instant real estate freely, and issued a certificate of seal impression.

C. On June 7, 2013, the Plaintiff paid the acquisition price to I, J, and K, and acquired their respective claims against the Defendant, and completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter “registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage of this case”) with the purport of KRW 150 million with respect to the instant real estate as the debtor, the mortgagee, the Plaintiff, and the maximum debt amount of KRW 150,000,000,000,000.

On the other hand, around March 20, 2014, C made a proposal to D, who represented the Plaintiff on behalf of the Plaintiff, to the effect that “I would not receive a tenant of the instant real estate in the first place of collateral security.” By cancelling this, C would receive a lease deposit from a State tenant, and would pay KRW 110 million as the secured debt of the said right to collateral security. On the other hand, C would lend the money to G and H, who is one of its partners, as the construction fund, and instead set up a collateral security for the said business property.”

E. Accordingly, on March 20, 2014, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 41.5 million from G and H from the Plaintiff.

“after receiving a loan certificate to the effect that it is: